Reflections On The Ethnonym Turk

From the Khan’s Oven
Studies on the History of Central Asian Religions in

Honor of Devin DeWeese
Edited by
Eren Tasar
Allen J. Frank
Jeff Eden
BRILL
leiden | boston
For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

Contents
Preface: Devin DeWeese ix

Allen J. Frank
Introduction: Devin DeWeese as a Scholar xiii
Eren Tasar and Allen J. Frank
Devin DeWeese: List of Publications xxiv
Notes on Contributors xxxix
1 Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk 1

Peter B. Golden
2 Aymaq in 16th-Century Persian Sources from Central Asia

With a Document of Tax Exemption for the Descendants of Ahmad
Yasavl 51
Jürgen Paul
3 The “Sultans of the Turks”

Central Asia’s Vernacular Moment, 1500-1550 77
Ron Sela
4 “A Lover Speaks”
The Life and Many Afterlives of a Naqshbandi Schoolmaster in History and
Hagiography 101
Nicholas Walmsley
5 Sayyid Muhammad Işfahânı (Shah Käshän)

The Construction of Biography and Genealogy in Badakhshan 148 Jo-Ann
Gross
6 After the Eclipse

Shaykh Khalllullah Badakhshanl and the Legacy ofthe Kubravlyah in
Central Asia 181
Daniel Beben
7 Saints, Lost and Found: The Discovery of Sacred Graves in Sufi

Hagiography
With a Translation of the Legend of the Seven Muhammads 212
Jeff Eden

vi contents
8 Commentary as Method vs Genre
An Analysis ofIsma’ilHaqqiBursawi’s Commentaries on the Qur’an and
the Masnawi-yi ma'nawf 237
Jamal J. Elias
9 Sufi Saint or Salafi Reformer?

All Tüntdrlin Fakhreddinovs Tatar Lineage of Kalam Critique 258 Michael
Kemper
10 “On the Importance of Having a Method”

Reading Atheistic Documents on Islamic Revival in 1950s Central
Asia 284
Paolo Sartori
11 Atheist and Muslim

Islamic Dictionaries from the 1980s and 1990s 323
Eren Tasar
12 Holy Virgin Lands?

Demographic Engineering, Heritage Management, and the Sanctification
of Territories in ex-Soviet Central Asia, since wwii 358
Stéphane A. Dudoignon
13 Sayaq Ata and the Antelopes

Game Animals as an Islamic Theme in Qazaq Hagiography 409
Allen J. Frank
Index 435
chapter 1
Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk

Peter B. Golden
Ethnicity and the modes or strategies of ethnic identification, both self-identi-

fication, identification by others and situational identification, remain a major
issue in medieval studies, European and Central Eurasian.1 From an anthro-
pological perspective, Stuart T. Smith has commented that: “ethnic identities are
situational and overlapping, constructed and negotiated by individuals in specific
social contexts.” Their “surprisingly immutable characteristics ... are surprisingly
mutable and socially contingent.” Ethnicity, in essence, is dynamic and “ethnic
groups are subjectively constructed, derived by actors who determine their own

ethnicity.” (Smith, 2008: 343, 346). Underlying ethnicity were the building blocks
of kinship, real, imagined and oft-manipulated. Kinship was the “language” of
socio-political organization in the Turkic-speaking nomadic world. Much emphasis
was (and in some regions still is) placed on genealogical trees purporting to show
descent from a common ancestor,2 “who gave birth to them in olden times”
(Kasgarî, 1982-1985, i: 102, in his comments on the Oğuz).3 These trees4 were
frequently “revised” or “reformed” to meet political needs (Khazanov, 1984: 138-
144).
1 See most recently the cautionary notes sounded by Pohl, 2018: 4, 11-13, Pohl, 2018a: 190-192 and his
numerous earlier studies, e.g. Pohl, 2013: 1-64; Pohl, 2002: 221-239 in Gillett (ed.) 2002, a volume
devoted to the conflicting notions regarding this critical issue; see also Gat, 2013.
2 Judin, 1992:19, views genealogical myths as the basis of Turko-Mongolian religion and their “picture of
the world.” In these conical formations, as one moved from the bottom, in which there were actual
direct ancestors, upwards to distant forebears, the greater were the elements of invention or fantasy.
On “highly malleable” genealogy used to buttress notions of “common ancestry” and its role in shaping
identity and ethnicity, see Edgar, 2004: 6-8, 2426, 49 (“genealogical consciousness did not in itself
make a nation.it merely provided a foundation for future nationhood,” as the Soviets found in the
creation of Central Asian states such as Turkmenistan and nationalities, narodnosti).
3 cf. Nemeth, 1991: 59-65 on ethnonyms formed from personal names, although many of them stem from
the Mongol and post-Mongol era. Ethnonyms, however, do appear as personal names.
4 After Islamization often known as (Arab.) sa'ara “tree” < sa'arat an-nasab “genealogical tree.” Cf. the
works of Abü’l-Ğazî Bahadur Xan, Sajara-yi Türk (Abü’l-Ğazî, 1871/-1874/1970) and Sajara-yi
Tarâkima (Abü’l-Ğazî, 1996).
© Peter B. Golden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471177_002

2 golden
Janhunen (1996: 25), underscoring the “instability of ethnonyms,” remarks that
they “are easily transferred to and from other levels of ethnic and social
organization.” Ethnonyms can be elevated beyond the group bearing them and
become imperial politonyms or be reduced to the lower subdivisions of social
organization in post-imperial contexts. How a group is perceived by outsiders, its
neighbors, near and less near, also “play a part” (Pohl, 2018: 13). A good many
peoples are best known by their exonyms, quite distinct from their selfdesignations
(e.g. the English and Russian usages: Hungarian/BeHrp ~ Magyar,
German/HeMe^ ~ Deutsch, Finn/ûHH ~ Suomi). Even once associated with a
particular ethnic grouping, the components of the group that bore that name could
(and indeed did) change over time. As Zuev (2002:7) among others has noted:
“there are no pure ethnoses.” Names, ethnonyms, as Geary (2002: 118) remarks,
“were renewable resources.” Language or mores specifically “a linguistic label” did
not determine ethnic identity (Pohl, 2018a: 192).5 Regardless of how complex,
from an ethno-linguistic perspective, a steppe or steppe/nomad- based empire may
have been (in the steppe most were polyethnic and mul- tilingual6), it, nonetheless,
“required ethnic distinctions and identifications, internally and externally.” The
empire “belonged” to “an ethnic group” (Pohl, 2018a: 205). Indeed, the empire or
state usually bore the name of the ruling ethnic group. Thus, “the Mamluk
Sultanate” (1250-1517), the common usage in historiography, a realm in which
professional soldiers of “slave” origin (mamluk, pl. mamalik) drawn mainly from
Qipcaq and other Turkic groupings constituted the ruling elite, referred to itself as
the “State of the Turks” (Dawlat al-
5 Mahmud al-Kasgari, writing his Diwan Lugat al-Turk ca. 1072-1077, differentiated between the different
dialects of Turkic, some of which he ranked from “elegant” to inferior. He notes “nomadic peoples” (the
Comül, Qay, Yabaqu, Tatar and Basmïl) who have their “own” languages, but also “know Turkic well.”
He was aware of bilingual groupings that were undergoing linguistic Turkicization (Kasgari, 1982-1985,
i: 82-86; Golden, 2015:505-537), the most important step, ashe often implied, for admission into the
Turkic World. He distinguished between bilingual groupings such as the Sogdaq (Sogdian settlers in
Balasagun), Kancak (see below) and Argu resulting from those “who mix with the populations of the
cities” (which were largely Iranian, i.e. Sogdian or Khotan Saka-speaking in language) who have “a
certain slurring (rikka) in their utterances” and groups of Khotan Sakas, Tibetans and Tanguts who
had settled in Turkic lands “but do not know Turkic well.” Kasgari’s distinctions, of course, were based
on Turkic-speaking and Turkicized populations, many of which were being called “Turks” on the basis
of Islamic usages that had made Türk, which had become a politonym, into a generic ethnicon.
6 The language of the ruling tribe as a consequence of its status became the “prestige” language and the
means of intergroup communication, although, on occasion, the ruling tribe/clan adopted the language
of the larger ruled population (Zuev, 2002: 6). The history of the Scandinavo-Varangian Rus’ (see
below) and Balkan Bulgars, both of which Slavicized in time, but gave their names to the new ethno-
polity, are well known examples of this phenomenon.
Atrak/Dawlatat-Turk/Dawlat-at-Turkiyya) were fully aware of their Turkic (and
Circassian) origins and spoke Turkic. Qipcaqs, in particular, were aware of and
took pride in their specific ethnic origins (see Yosef, 2012:388-391,395, who sug-

reflections on the ethnonym türk 3
gests that the name of the state might be best translated as “the rule of the ones
who speak Turkish/the rule of the Turkified”). In this instance, language - even if
acquired as a non-native-speaker (i.e. Arabs in Mamluk governmental service)
played a role in determining status. Similarly, some contemporary sources called
the Seljuk state the Dawlatal-Atrakwa’l-Ajam (The State of the Turks and
Persians) reflective of the important impact of Persian culture and bureaucracy on
the elite (Yosef, 2012: 393), a circumstance that became increasingly true of
Islamo-Turkic states.
Sometimes, especially in the “tribal zones” bordering on states, the latter can
play a role in shaping polities deriving from tribes (Ferguson and Whitehead, 1992:
3; Ferguson, 1999: 419; Miller, 1993: 277-285). This factor also figures in the
formation of ethnicities. The appearance of the Turks on the stage of history takes
place in just such a context of tribal societies (of complex origins) coming into
contact with a powerful, but fading empire, in this case ^ ^ Tuoba (Tabgac)-ruled
China (386-556)/ The Tuoba/Tabgac were led by a ruling clan/tribe speaking a
Middle Serbi-Mongolic language (Shimunek, 2017: 1-35 [offering a critique of the
term “Para-Mongolic,” which he replaces with “Serbi-Mongolic”], 52, 121-168).8
Their state, comprised of other “Altaic” sub-
7 The ®®^ Tuoba (Tabgac) Wei / Jt^ Northern Wei (386-534) and the short-lived M^ Eastern Wei
(534-550) and W^ Western Wei (535-556) deriving from them, were “an ethnic minority conquest
regime” (Eisenberg, 2018: 369, 384) in Northern China.
8 Tabgac Chin. ffi^ tuobaoc thâkbât ih thakb a t mc thâkbwât (Schuessler, 2009:69 [2-i7m], 237 [2i—
3ibc]);emc thak bait/bs:timc thakpha:t (Pulleyblank, 1991:314 [64:5], 27 [64:5]). Beckwith, 2005: 9-
12 thakbat = takbat = *takbar. Turkic tabğac, a metathesized form came probably via Rouran or
Tabgac: *tagbac meaning “rulers of the earth”: Tabgac L"an “dirt, soil, earth” (Beckwith, 2005: 9-12;
Shimunek, 2017:167, 375) + bac < *bat/pat (< Prakrit < Sanskrit pati “lord, ruler,”). Serbi, in turn, is
transcribed in Chinese as ^^ Xianbei: ih sian-pie, mc sjan pjie (Schuessler, 2009: 248 [23-21a], 177 [7-
29a]), mc sjen pjie (Kroll, 2015: 493,11-12), emc sian pjii/pji: *Sarbi/ *Sirvi/*Sarvi (Pulleyblank,
1991:334 [195:6], 31[24:6], Pulleyblank, 1983: 452453, Pulleyblank 2000: 71); mc sjen,pye < oc
*s[a]r.pe “Sarbi” (Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 261262, 346). On the Xianbei, see Holcombe, 2013:1-38
and Duthie, 2019: 23-41. The Sarbi/Serbi are, perhaps, the later Sabirs > Saviri, ZdŞıpoı, Zâêıpoı,
Um^hrf [Savirk’], UmL^rf [Sawirk’], jl^^ [sawar], TINO [savir], *Sabir? (Pritsak, 1976: 22,28, 29;
Golden, 20^:15-26). Turkic tağ- bac, as a place name is recorded in the letter of a Türk Qağan (simply
termed “the Qağan,” 6 XaY«voç, perhaps Niri Qağan, r. 595-604, see de La Vaissiere, 2018: 316) to the
Byzantine Emperor, Maurikios (r. 582-602) dated to sometime in or after 595 (Czegledy, 1983:197,
dates it to 598), preserved in a complicated account of the fall and flight of the Rouran/Avars in 552-
555 and internecine strife among the Türks ca. 582, recorded in Theophylaktos Simokat- tes, 1972:
256-259; Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1986: 188-190, writing sometime in the 630s- ordinate tribal
groupings as well as a majority Chinese population, straddled the borders of the
steppe and the Northern Chinese sedentary world. The Tab- gac ruling elite
maintained their Inner Asian identity until 493 when Emperor ^^ Xiaowen (r.
471-499, whose mother was Chinese) promoted a “radical program of
sinicization” (Graff, 2002: 98; Xiong, 2009: 575) ultimately leading to domestic

4 golden
dissension and the splintering of the dynasty (Graff, 2002: 97120).
Of the 59 peoples of Inner Asia/Eastern Central Eurasia that came into the
purview of the Chinese sources, substantive ethno-linguistic information is given
for only 18 of them. Of the 18, only 3 can be identified with confidence and
identifications of 3 others may be conjectured with somewhat less certitude (Sinor,
2005:5). The Türks are one of the 3 about which we are reasonably certain. Türk
first appeared as a tribal name affiliated with the Ashina (see below). The Türk
union ultimately consisted of 30 tribes (Dobrovits, 2004: 257-262), comprising the
Ashina (the royal clan and the “tribe” of that same name), 10 other tribes/clans of
the inner core of the Eastern Türks,9 the 10 tribes/clans of the On Oq/Western
Türksw and the grouping termed the A#4 Jiü x'mg (lit. “nine surnames/family
names”), i.e. the Toquz Oğuz. The latter were part of the ^^ Tiele8 9 10 11 union, earlier
termed the ^^ Gaoche “High Carts” (Liu, 1958, 1:127- 128; Pulleyblank, 1990:21-26;
Dobrovits, 2011: 375-378), and before that the ]' M Dingllng,12 13 perhaps a rendering
8early 640s (Treadgold, 2010: 329-340, especially, pp. 330-332; Neville, 2018: 47-48): Tau- Yâar
[Taüyast/Ta^yast: *Tawgac, the Türk form]. In addition to Tauydtor, further local color, i.e. local
usages in Theophylaktos’s narrative, gained through contact with the Türks, may be seen in the
geographical names T1X (for At'il/Âtil, usually the Volga), 'OY^P (seemingly for Oğur), but it might
be recalled that the family name of the founder of the AsianAvars/Rouran is ^^H Yüjiülü (Taskin,
1984: 58-59, 267,461) emc Puwk kuw’ lia imc ?iwkkiw’liajlya (Pulleyblank 1991:384 [163:6], 161
[4:2], 204 [169:7]); mc îjukkjau Ijwo (Schuessler, 2009: 96 [4-17»’], 95 [4-13a], 57 [1-54g]), which
Rona-Tas, 1999: 210-211, suggests is a rendering of *ugur(i) > Uğur, which he considers a
“secondary” form stemming from Oğur. Another toponym reflecting Türk usage is: MouKpi = Türk
tY^^S Bükli kt-E8. bq-E^, Aydın, 2017: 53,81,82], “Korea (? Şirin, 2015:163-164, cf. Chin. ^Smo
liemc mak li’/li’ lmc mak li (Pulleyblank, 1991: 218 [85:11], 188 [96:7]), see Theophylaktos
Simokattes, 1972: 258 (vii,7.12, 13), The letter and the account of the fall and fate of the
Rouran/Avars and origins of the “European Avars” has occasioned a substantial literature, which
need not detain us here. The most recent exposition is found in Pohl, 2018: 38-50, who provides a
thorough survey of the question.
9 For the names (and tamğa signs used on their horses) see Liu, 1958, i: 453-454; the pioneering
study by Zuev, 1960: 93-140 (with the Chinese text and translation of the OW 5 Tanghu'iyao, iii.
72.1305-1308, a work by iiS Wang Pu, 922-982, see Wilkinson, 2018: 717) and Dobrovits, 2004:
258-259. These names merit a full study.
10 On their names see Tisin, 2017:267-299.
11 emc *ht-lak Pulleyblank (1990: 22) revised by Shimunek (2017: 44, n. 32) to: *thgr-lak. He
further notes Beckwith’s reconstruction (Beckwith, 2004: 104, the second edition of 2007 cited by
Shimunek is unavailable to me) of 8 tie (“iron”) as oc *thek. Coblin, 1994: 346 [0756] (8) qys (WHM
Qieyun a “rhyme book”/dictionary compiled in 601 and surviving only in later works, Baxter and Sagart,
2014:9; Wilkinson, 2018:27-28, dated ca. 700 in Pan and Zhang, 2015:80-81 “reflecting the literary
pronunciation” of 7th century Luoyang and Nanjing regions; a principal source for Anc. Chin. [= mc] in
Karlgren, revised by Li [see Coblin, 1994:16-17] thiet, Old NWChin. thet stca (Chang’an of Sui-Tang era)
*thiar mtca (Mid-Tang Chang’an) * thiar > *thiar $J (Coblin, 1994: 413 [0984]) qys, Old NWChin. *bk =
*thiet/ thet/ thiar> thiar lak.
12 oc tey req ih tey ley (Schuessler, 137 [9-ua], 140 [9:181]). Shimunek, 2017:44, n. 32 slightly revises
the alternate form ^^ Dmgling emc tsjy liajy (Pulleyblank, 1991:80 [1:1], 196 [9:3]) to: tsyy-liayy.
13 emc ?a§i’/§i’tak (Pulleyblank, 1991: 23 [170:5], 283^0:2], 74 [60:8]); *Astaq? (Zuev, 2002:
33,34,86-88,168); Old nw Chin. ?a-sa-tak (Coblin, 1994:124 [0016], 240-24^0382], 411-412

of *tegreg “wagon,” a Tuoba/Tabgac exonym forTiele (Kljastomyj, 2010:162-163;
Golden, 2012:179-180). They were frequent rivals of the Türks proper. The “in-law”
clan/tribe of the Ashina was the H^^ Âshide.13 All of these groupings, including the
Toquz Oğuz, took the politonym Türk. Although the Toquz Oğuz are called “my
own people” (kentü bodunum) in the Köl Tegin inscription (kt-N4 Aydın, 2017: 65)
and “my people” meniy bodunum in the Bilge Qağan inscription (b q-E29); they
were also called enemies (toquz oğuz bodunyagi ermiş, kt-Ew, bq-Wi2 Aydın,
2017:55,84) in other situations. Accordingly, the politonym Türk was adopted, with
what appears to have been varying degrees of willingness, by groupings that came
under their rule. Although it seems to have faded as such (except to designate the
literary Turkic koine that developed from Old Türk) after the fall of the Qağanate in
743/744, it was picked up by the Muslim historians and geographers as a gentilic
generic for all speakers of the closely related Turkic languages/dialects. Thus,
Turk/pl. Atrak, took on a distinctive meaning for the steppe peoples (and some
nonsteppe peoples) of Central Eurasia and adjoining zones. The Turkic-speaking
peoples, as they were brought into Islam, used the Islamo-Arabo-Persian name
Turk to designate themselves (Bartol’d, 1963-1977b, ii/1: 553; Bartol’d, 1963-
1977c, v: 39-40). The Islamized Qaraxanids, in particular, made use of Türk as a
self-designation and Turk more broadly as a generic ethnicon (Golden, 2015: 506-
507). It retained a somewhat vaguer political-cultural sense among peoples that
had been brought under Türk rule and had migrated off, after (and in some
instances before) 743/744 to form their own polities, retaining elements of the
Türk political tradition as expressed in titles and organization and, with respect to
the Qarluqs, in claims of translatio imperii (Golden, 2001:11-19,4445).
Subsequently, the ethnonym Türk is found in the “Letter of an Anonymous
Khazar Jew” (the “Schechter Letter” from the Geniza Collection) to Hasdai b.
Saprut, the Jewish courtier and diplomat of the Umayyads of Spain, ca. 960, which
refers to the western Oğuz as the N'pHü [Turqia] and as the lp“ılü [Turqu] (Golb and
Pritsak, 1982:112-115, 120/121), transcribed in a pattern similar to that of earlier
Syriac sources (see below). It is unlikely that the anonymous author would have
had Christian Syriac models to follow. These forms and the TopKu/Topû of the
Old Rus’ chronicles (their designation for the western Oğuz who are first
mentioned s.a. 1054, pvl, 1996: 70, 87) still await a full explanation. It should also
be noted that the Hungarians of the 9th-11th centuries were frequently called
ToûpKOi in addition to or in place of Ouyppoi in the Byzantine sources (Moravcsik,
1958, ii: 321-322; Nemeth, 1991: 63,185, 240, Rona-Tas, 1999:275-278)14 and
Turks in the Arabo-Persian accounts of the same period (Zimonyi, 2001:201-212;
[0979]) ca. 400. Late Tang Tibet. “a-shi-tig” Tibet ms. Pelliot.T.1283 (Atwood, 2012: 74); Venturi
2008:21: a-sha-sde’isde-chig =Ashide. Harmatta (1994:394-395): suggests oc: a§i tak < Saka
*assitak < *axssitak < *axltaka < Old. Iran. *%saita-ka cf. Sogd.’xsyS “ruler.” See Atwood, (2012):
74-75, who suggests A-she-tig or A-shi-teg.

6 golden
Zimonyi, 2016: 83-102).
When we first encounter the Türks, it is very likely that they were not a homo-
geneous group. As a politonym, the ethnicon Türk denoted a population that was
even less so. Recent studies based on dna appear to indicate that the early Turkic-
speaking peoples, like most peoples, were of diverse origins (Lee and Kuang, 2017:
197-239).15 With these prefatory comments, we may now turn to the
ethnonym~politonym Türk, the name by which this people became known to the
larger world.
The issue of the origin, earliest attested form and meaning of the ethnonym
Türk has engendered a considerable literature (e.g. Sinor, 1963: 234-239; Bazin,
1953: 318-322; Clauson, 1962/2002: 84-88; Doerfer, tmen, ii: 483-495; Nemeth,
1991: 84-85; Kafesoğlu, 2014: 11-25; Şirin, 2015: 33-34, Rona-Tas, 1991: 10-13;
Rona-Tas, 1999: 280-281 and most recently Rona-Tas and Berta, 2011, ii: 939942,
with a summary of the various etymological attempts). The etymology remains
uncertain, with viewpoints depending on whether one considers the ethnonym as
stemming from Turkic - or some other language. Such prob-
14 Marquart (1903/1961: 45) in keeping with his theory of the “Scythian” origin of this term suggested that
the Byzantines took the ToupKOi designation of the Magyars/Hungarians from the Alans.
15 In general, one should speak of “Turkic-speaking peoples” rather than “Turkic peoples.” It is a
linguistic designation, the extent of “ethnic” homogeneity undoubtedly varied within the various
groups; the larger the group, the less likely its genetic homogeneity. dna studies still have much to
tell us.
lems are not unique to Türk; one has only to think of the enormous literature
generated by the “Normanist” and “Anti-Normanist” controversy over the eth-
nonym/term Rus’ (for a sampling of the ongoing 300-year debate, cf. the recent
studies of Schramm, 2002; Duczko, 2004; Fomin, 2005; Klejn, 2009; Petrukhin,
2012).
It would be useful to review the data chronologically. Attempts have been made
to link the Türk with the ’Ivpxat of Herodotos (rv. 22),16 writing in the 5th century
bce, a people placed beyond the Tava'ıç (the Don region) and the lands of the
Sauromatians (ZaupoâTai), whose lands begin at the inmost corner of the
Maeotis (ex TOÛ ûxov apÇaêvoı T^Ç Mat^TiSoç Zi^vnç, i.e. the Sea of Azov).
North of the Sauromatians are the Budini (BouSivoi), living in a heavily forested
zone. North of the latter, some seven days journey across a desert (epnôç)
eastward, are the Ouo’O’aYeTai, a numerous people, and then the ’Ivpxat, both of
whom live by hunting. ’Ivpxat, if it was not originally Tvpxat, it has been argued,
became corrupted over time to the Turcae17 of Pomponius Mela (De
Chorographia or De situ orbis, r.116, written ca. 44 ce, see Podosinov and
Skrzinskaja eds. 2011:20-21 [on dating], 50/51). The text follows Herodotus, noting
the Budini and not far from them the “great forests” (vastas silvas) which the

Thyssagetae and Turcae occupy, living by hunting. Very similar is the text of Pliny
the Elder (23-79) in his Natural History vr. 19 (Podosinov and Skrzin- skaja eds.
2011: 186/187; Aalto and Pekannen, 1975-1980, rr: 230), who places them in the
area of Tanais (the Don), where the Sarmatae live. The latter subdivide into many
peoples, the Sauromatae, Tindari,18 Thussagetae and Tyrcae among others, “up
to the rough, wooded deserted [regions]” (solitudines saltu- osis convallibus
asperas), difficult of access. The forms Turcae, Tyrcae show the indebtedness of
the texts to the Greek sources (the y of Tyrcae is the regular rendering of Greek u
in Latin).19 The location of these peoples has long
16 Herodotos, 1982:108/109; Sinor, 1990: 285, Sinor, 1997:165-179. Beckwith (2006/2007)10, n. 30,
follows Sinor.
17 Marquart suggested that ’lupKai > Turcae/Tyrcae resulted from a “Konsonantenversetzung,” which
took place due to “Pontic-Iranian mediation” and concluded that the “forms Turcae, Tyrcae,
ToupKOi belonged to Scythian dialects” (Marquart, 1903/1961:55-56), a view that has not garnered
support.
18 Identified with the “Dandarii” of Strabo (xi.2.11) and Tacitus, (Annales xi i.15) and others, appear to
have lived in the northern part of the Taman peninsula and on the coast of the Sea of Azov
(Podosinov and Skrzhinskaia, 2011: 325, n. 539).
19 Sinor (1990: 285-287) accepted the Latin forms and suggested that it was just as likely that the
’lupKai of Herodotus may have been the corrupted form. There is no textual evidence for this.
Greek Upsilon u was pronounced u (at least in educated circles) up to the 9th century (Browning,
1983:56) or perhaps as late as the 11th century (Moravcsik, 1958, ii: 35). been debated. While
the Thyssagetae/Thussagetae (OvOTTayETat), viewed as a Volga Finnic
people, have been placed in areas ranging from the Don to the Volga, Kama
or Urals, the emerging general consensus is that the Turcae/Tyr- cae (and
hence the Ivpxat) inhabited the western slopes of the Ural mountain range,
near present-day Perm’. The Ivpxat, in turn, are viewed as Ugrians and
considered by some as the forebears of the Wrpa of the Rus’ chronicles
(Podosi- nov and Skrzinskaja eds. 2011: 104, n. 157, 325, n. 541 and the
comments in Herodotus, 1982:244-247, n. 227). Geographically, we are far
away from where we first encounter the Türks, as such, in Inner Asia. As I
have concluded elsewhere, we have a dearth of data and “[a]ny connections
between Ivpxat and Yugra or Turcae/Tyrcae (< *TvpKai) and Türk remain
problematic and require much more than a possible phonetic resemblance”
(Golden, 2008-2009: 7679). Nearly a millennium later, according to a report
in at-Tabari, a massive attack of some 250,000 Turks led by “Xaqan” (the
Qağan) “king of the Turks” (malik at-Turk), against the Sasanid ruler
Bahram (Wahram) v (420-438) took place. The attack ended in failure and is
clearly anachronistic in its identification of the foes of Iran as the “Turks.”
The notice, very likely, refers to some earlier - and probably much smaller -

8 golden
Eurasian nomad/“Hunnic” attack.20 Strikingly anachronistic is the title
Qağan (“Xaqan”) associated with the “Turk” ruler at this time. This title is
first attested ca. 265 (Taskin, 1986: 213-218; Kubatin, 2016: 55-56;
Shimunek, 2017: 368, n. 443), as the ruler of the ^^ Qlfu.21 a Xianbei-Serbi
people and is subsequently noted among other Serbi-derived peoples.22
Qağan became more consistently used by the Rouran ruler ^^ Shelun (r.
402-410)23 and was assumed/taken by the Türks only after they overthrew
the Rouran/Avars.
20 At-Tabari (1967-1969,11: 75-76, at-Tabari, 1999, v: 95-96 and n. 246) reports that Bahram v killed
“Xaqan” with his own hands and slaughtered his army. Rezakhani (2017: 93-99) suggests that the
“Turks” were the Kidarites one of the Chionite/“Hunnic” peoples in the Iranian borderlands. Sinor
(1990: 287) in keeping with his view of the Tyrcae et al. does not exclude the possibility that the
“Turks” here were, indeed, Turks, a doubtful proposition.
21 ih * khat buk (Schuessler, 2009: 305 [30-rf], 113[5-36a]), nemc * khirbuwk. (Shimunek, 2017: 54).
22 Qagan “emperor” was a “widespread culture word ... throughout Central Eurasia, but first attested
among the Serbi peoples;” Middle Serbi: *q"aiian [^^], cf. tt^S Tùyùhûn (Pelliot, 1920-1921:323:
*Tu’uy-yun or *Tuyuyun; emc thohjuawkywan imc thua'jywkxkun Pulleyblank, 1991: 312 [30:3],
385 [150:0], 135 [85:9] = Thogon, Tibet. Aza/Azha, Old Tibet. Thogon, Beckwith, 1987:17]) and
Tabgac *q"aiian [^^] kehân nemc k"anyan (Shimunek, 2017: 162, 167, 188, 367-368).
23 emc dzia’lwan (Pulleyblank: 278 [113:3], 202 [46:8]); ih dzaBluanmczjaBlwan (Schuessler,
2009: 52 [1-36j], 339 [34-24hij).
We are on more certain ground with the first notices on the Türks in Chinese
accounts, reporting events of the 540s. The Türks, while still vassals of the ^^
Róurán/Avars,24 are first noted in the MW Zhoushü,25 (chap. 50) in the early 540s
when they came to the border seeking to obtain silk goods and establish a
relationship with China. Shortly thereafter a series of embassies in 545 and 546
between the Türks and the Western Wei (535-556) followed in which a Sogdian,
^^^^ An Nuopántuó (Nakbanda),26 represented China (Liu, i: 6-7, ii: 490-491; de
La Vaissiere, 2016:184-185). Although these accounts were officially noted in the
dynastic histories that were compiled/composed well after the 540s, they most
probably were based on official records contemporaneous with the events
described. In them, we encounter the first references in Chinese to the ethnonym
Türk as well as to tales of their origins and early historical encounters. In one of the
accounts of Türk origins27 reported in the MW Zhoushü (chap. 50), the ancestors of
the Türks (WM Tüjué) are said to constitute “a particular tribe ( ^® bié zhong) of
Xiongnu, their family name
24 The ethnonym Avar/Awar (Byzantine Greek "Apapoi) has been connected with the ^ ^ Wuhuán ~ ,^%
'
Wuwán: mc 'u-hwan < Western Han *?ia-hiwar < oc qfa + *G"' ar (Baxter and Sagart, 2014:262;
Kroll, 2015: 479,169); emc ?3-ywan < ?a-ywán. (Pulleyblank, 1983: 452-454), a branch of the ^É£
[ Donghú grouping of tribes, many of which appear to have been Mongolic/Para-Mongolic/Serbi in

speech. In Chinese accounts they usually appear as: ^^ Róurán: ih nu nan, mc nzjau nzjan
(Schuessler, 2009:180 [13—48a], 258 [24—36ab]); mc nyuw nyen (Kroll, 2015: 389, 383), emc:
ftuwftian, imc: riw rian (Pulleyblank, 1991:267 [75:5], 264 [86:8] with variants - and commonly
the derisive ®®/^^ Ruanruan [Oshanin, iii: 230^6193), 641^8478)] “wriggling, crawling
(insects/worms)”): ih nuanB, nuanB, mc nzjwanB (Schuessler, 2009: 273 [25—35a]), mc nywen
nywen (Kroll, 2015: 392), emc ftwianpwian (Pulleyblank, 1991: 269 [142:14]), see Golden, 2013:
52-53 for discussion of these forms and variants. The relationship of the Rouran and European
Avars remains a disputed question. Pohl (2018: 40-47), the foremost scholar of the Avars, consid -
ers the Rouran ~ European Avar relationship “plausible,” but complicated as the grouping of
people appearing in the western Eurasian steppes under this prestigious “dynastonym” derived
from a variety of origins both from and beyond the Inner Asian Rouran.
25 The work of WIMÍ®^ Línghú Défen (d. 666) compiled in 629, presented in 636 (Wilkin
son, 2018: 694).
26 emc ?an nak ban da (Pulleyblank, 1991: 24 [40:3], 228 [149:9], 231 [108:10], 314 [170:5]); de La
Vaissière, 2016:184. Harmatta (1972: 272) suggested Nahidfiand < Old Iran. *Anahita- banda
*Nahifiand < Naxfiand < Nâyfiand, Northwestern Tang Nây-b’uân-d’â. Lurje (2010: 90 [95], 267-
268 [774]), noted the names ’n’xtfintk: Anaxatvande or nfiyfintk: Naviyvande (?) and suggested
that Àn Nuopántuó may be “the same name, in a metathetic variant * nayvvande.”
27 On the origin tales of the Türk, see Erkoç, 2017: 36-75; Golden, 2018: 291-327. On origin tales in
Medieval Europe, but with wider applications to Eurasia as a whole, see Pohl, 2018b:192-221.
28 Or “separate,” “distinct” (Kroll, 2015: 23).
(^ xing29) is H^.BP A shina.”3° The latter family or clan name has inspired a
number of differing explanations/etymologies.31
29 Also “surname; patronymic family name. Descendant” (Kroll, 2015: 510); “family name, clan ...
children, descendants” (Oshanin, 1983-1984,11:194 [633]). Clearly, the name of the ruling clan is
meant here.
30 According to the most recent readings, H^^ Ä shina appears in the Sogdian part of the Bugut
Inscription-11 as (’)syn’s kwtr(’)tt “the family/lineage of Asinas” (Yoshida, 2019: 98-99,104;
Gharib, 2004: 201 [5061] kwt’r “race, family, lineage”). Ösawa (2011:146): tr’-wkt '(’)syn's kwtr'tt
’xs'y-wnh “land of Ashinas tribe of Turks,” (’xs’wn, “ruling, realm,” Gharib, 2004: 82 [2080]), In
the Sogdian part of the Uyğur Qara Balgasun Inscription (dated to 821), he reads: ''syn's kwtr wrk
'xs'wnh “land of Ashinas tribe of Turks” (wrk presumably should be twrk, pbg). However, recent
publications of the fragmentary text do not show this (Ölmez, 2018: 39-42, based on the reading by
Yoshida). The latter (Yoshida, 2011: 8081) reads H^^ as e shi na (e is an alternate reading for H ä,
emc, imc ?a (Pulleyblank, 1991: 86 [170:5]) standing for Asinas. Ösawa has also put forward the
reading: asınas köl tudun inisi Altun Tamğan in the Runiform (Xöl [or Xör] Asgat Inscription
(dated to 729 or 724 by others), E1, W1, W4 Asgat iia W4, Asgat iib E1, Ösawa, 2010: 22-23, 24, 26,
28-29, 50-61). Ünal (2015: 273), however, proposes a different reading: kül tud(u)n in(i)si (a)ltun
t(a)mg(a)n t(a)rh(a)n).
31 H^^ äshlna (orashlna, äshlnub) emc*?aşi/şi’na’/nah/nah, ımc ?aşr'na’/na'/na' (Pul
leyblank, 1991: 23 [170:5], 283 [30:2], 221 [163:4], 228 [163:4]), ?aJi na (Jiu Tangshu, 2005: 360,
following Wang Li) perhaps renders Khotano-Saka âşşeina “blue” < *axsaina (Bailey, 1979: 26-27;
Haussig, 1979: 57): < Iranian axsaena “dunkelfarbig;” for the variants of *axsaina, see Rastorgueva
and Edel’man, i (2000-2015), i: 284-286 with the original sense of “dark, dark-blue, blue.”
Kliashtornyi (Kliashtornyi, 1994: 445-447; Kliashtornyi, 2006: 446-449; Kliashtornyi, 2010:191-
192) first advanced the Ashina < Khotano-Saka âşşeina, ässena “blue” thesis. Kliashtornyi, 2006:
442 also cites Tokh. A äsna “blue, dark” with reference to Bailey, 1979: 26 in the entry on âşşeina

10 golden
“blue,” but äsna is not found there, nor is it noted in Carling et al. 2009. Kliashtornyi (2010: 191)
notes it as a borrowing in Tokhar- ian from Khotan Saka or Sogdian ‘xs’yn’k (-exsene). Borrowings
into Proto-Tokharian from a “continuum” of Northeast Iranian languages (starting with pre-Proto-
Ossetic, cf. Osset. axsin “dark-gray,” Abaev, 1958, i:220) have been dated to starting from ca.
500bce (Kim, 2003: 67). Kliashtornyi viewed Turk. kök “the sky, blue” as its Turkic translation. In
addition to kök, Clauson (1972: 708-709), the form kök (with ö, not ö) is found with a wide range of
disparate meanings: “root, origin; thong; seam.” The term kök türk, which has been compared with
the Mongol Kökemoyğol (“Blue Mongols”) recorded by the 17th century historian Sagang Secen in
his Erdeni-yin tobci (Pritsak, 1954: 382; a late attestation with other probable origins than the
Türk tradition, as noted by Tisin, 2018:10-11), is mentioned twice in the Orxon runiform
inscriptions, kt-E3, bq-E3: RTPk i Pi kök türük as the designation of the Ashina-led Türks or
perhaps denoting “Ashinas and Türks.” Erdal (2019: 81 and n. 7, 95 and n. 24), however connects
kök in kök türk with kök “root” rather than kök (the presence of a long ö is reflected in Cuv. kavak).
RR kök [ükük/'ilklik, perhaps for kök? used here as a particle of strengthening (Aydın, 2019: 153,
180)] is noted only in T- E4 (Aydın, 2017: 109; Berta, 2004:35). Şirin (2015: 145-146) does not
distinguish between kök and kök. If kök is, indeed, correct, it would have been used in the color-
geographical
In another account in that same source, the ancestors of the Turks are said to
stem from the ^ SUQ32 state that was north of the Xiongnu (Liu, 1958, i: 5, ii:
scheme in the Turkic world, “blue” denoted the East (Pritsak, 1955: 245-249; Şirin, 2015: 146).
Tisin, 2018: 7-27, in his review of the kök question, dismisses the theories of Pritsak, Kljastornyj,
but views kök “blue” as the “more optimal” rendering of the word, serving as an epithet in an
unusual way, without further explanations possible at this time. Returning to äshinä, other
etymologies have been put forward by Atwood (2012: 68-78), who connects it with Tokh. arsi “holy
man,” cf. Sanskrit rşi, see, however, Tokh. A arsi “name of the speakers of Tocharian A” (Carling et
al. 2009: 48-49), but Tokh. B arse “monk (??)” or “Agnean (???”) perhaps from Proto-Tokh.*arcye
(Adams, 2013, i: 57-58); Old NWChi- nese: ?a-şa-na (Coblin, 1994:124-125 [0016], 240-24^0382],
121 [0005]). A variant is ^ § ^ Äsena (Xin Tangshu 221B.6250) emc ?a pit na’ imc ?a pa na'
(Pulleyblank, 1991: 23 [170:5], 273 [96:9], 221 [163:4]). It has also been proposed that Äshinä may
stand for Asila or Arsila. Beckwith (2016: 39-46), contends that “all of the previous proposals are
problematic” and maintains that ashinä reflects Tokh. arsilas “noble kings,” recalling the name or
title of the “senior ruler of the Turks,” ’Apîkaç, mentioned by Menander (1985:172/173) in his
account of the Byzantine envoy Valentinos’s mission to the Türks in 576. Kliash- tornyi, (2010: 191)
found the argument philologically strained as it does not explain the dropping of -r- and the
transmission of -n- with -l-. Chavannes (1941/1969: 240) mistook ’Apcikaç for Turk. arslan “lion,”
the name, he believed, of “le plus ancien des ces chefs” (naXaiTepy) of the Türks who each ruled
one of the eight sections (ev OKTÛ Y^P H-Oİpaıç) into which the Türks had divided the territory of
what was most probably the more westerly region under their control. Chavannes further
contended (with Blockley, Menander, 1985: 276, n. 222 following him) that the seniority of
’Apcikaç extended only to the eight Türk rulers of that particular region. He was not, as Marquart
(1898:186) claimed, “der oberste Herrscher der Türken.” Rather, he was the senior member or
primus inter pares of the Ashina clan ruling in that part of the Qağanate. The passage in Menander
is open to a variety of interpretations, but it is not certain that ’Apcikaç denoted Ashina. Asinas
(’)syns cannot be a plural in Sogdian or Khotan Saka (in vocalic declensions: -a, -a, -aa, - aa, -i,
Emmerick, 2009: 384-387). If (’)syn’s (*Asinas) is, indeed, a correct reading, it might point to the
same plural forms in -s inherited in Türk from a presumed older form of Turkic (?) or from the
Rouran/Avar (Mongolic) vocabulary. Erdal (2004: 158) notes this plural in - (A)s only in the word
isbara, pl. isbaras, a Türk title/name/honorific borrowed, ultimately, from the Sanskrit isvara

“lord.” In the Brähmi-script Mongol section of the Bugut inscrip- tion6 isbara appears as Asvar
(Vovin, 2019: 189). Another medium of transmission may have been Tokharian, which has a (fem.)
adj. plural in -as (Adams, 1988: 108). Borrowings into Proto-Tokharian from a “continuum” of
Northeast Iranian languages (starting with pre-Proto-Ossetic, cf. Osset. axsin “dark-gray,” Abaev,
1958, i:220) have been dated to starting from ca. 500bce (Kim, 2003: 67). It is unclear if the Turkic
servitor of the Abbäsid Caliph al-Mu‘taşim (833-842), Ashinäs (Gordon, 2001:17 [noting the
probably fictional account explaining his name as deriving from Pers. sinas ma-ra “know (i.e. “take
notice”) of me,” i.e. “I’m your man” uttered to save al-Mu‘taşim from an attack], 24, 44, 57-58,60,
69,112-113 et passim) is related to Ashina(s). Kliashtornyi (1964:112), however, dismissed this
notion long ago. Atwood (2012: 70-71) viewed the explanation as a folk etymology, but considered
this anthroponym as possibly connected to Ashina. Ashina(s), thus, remains problematic.
489, n. 8, who points out that Suo was an old name for the habitat of the Xian- bei
union [see above], but cautions that an ethnic connection with the Xianbei should
not be drawn from this notice). The ^^ Suishu33 (chap. 84), and later accounts, in
addition to the legendary ethnogonic tales, provides a more historical narrative,
which reports that the “Turks stemmed from the ^^ za hu “mixed Hu”34 of ^^
Pingliang (in Gansu). They had the family name Ashina. When Emperor ^^^ Tai
Wudi (r. 423-452) of the Northern Wei destroyed the M^ Juqu,35 the Ashina with
500 families fled to the $□$□ Ruru36 (= ^^ Rouran37) and lived for generations on
the Altay (Jinshan) where they worked in the preparation of iron implements”
(Liu, 1958, i: 40, ii: 519, nn. 207, 208, 209; de La Vaissiere, 2016:185; Taâgil,
1995-2004, i: 9, 95-96 [taken from the ,ffi#( Tongdian38 chap. 197], 110,111 [taken
from the ffiWxfi Cefuyuangul39 chaps. 956, 958]).
Thus, Gansu and then Gaochang, regions of Eastern Turkistan/Xinjiang,
became important areas in the shaping of the Turks in a period extending from ca.
265 to 439 ~ 460 ce. The Ashina may have migrated to Gansu ca. or after 265, a
period in which large numbers of Xiongnu or Xiongnu-affiliated tribes migrated
beyond the Great Wall from Central Eurasia and Southern Siberia into regions in
which Saka and Tokharian-speaking populations lived and with which the Ashina
had close contact, mixed - or from which the Ashina themselves may have sprung
(Kljastornyj, 1964:110-114; Kljastornyj, 2003: 420-426 and most recently restated
in Kljastornyj, 2010:187-189; Golden, 2008-2009:
32 emc: sak lmc: sak Pulleyblank, 1991: 298 [120:4]. Beckwith, 2006-2007: 10, n. 30; Beckwith, 2006: 10,
n. 30; Beckwith, 2009: 405, n. 52, argues for the Suo~Saka connection and a possible non-Turkic
origin for the Ashina tribe/clan of the Turks.
33 Authored by by ^^ Wei Zheng [d. 643], compiled 629-636, presented 636 (Wilkinson, 2018: 694).
34 oc: ga, ih: go < ga mc yuo (Schuessler, 2007: 281; Schuessler, 2009: 46 [1-1a’]), a general
term for “steppe nomads” of unknown etymology. Pulleyblank (1983: 449-450) remarks that the
term Hu first appears in Chinese accounts of the “Warring States period” (484- 221bce), which
brought parts of China into contact with steppe equestrian-pastoralist peoples.
35 ih dza? gia (Schuessler, 2009:58[1-57k], 49 [1-19gh]), emc dzii gii (Pulleyblank, 1991: 164[85:5],
260(85:9]), a Xiongnu clan that founded the Jt^ Bei Liang Northern Liang state (397-439) in
Gansu (Liu, 1958, ii: 519, n. 209).
36 ih ha/ ha(c)/haB/ na B/c/ haC/ mc nzjwo/ nzjwo(c)/ nzjwoB/nzjwoB/c/nzjwoc (Schuessler, 2009: 57 [1-

12 golden
56r]): na na and nzjwo nzjwo etc.; emc yio yii (Pulleyblank, 1991: 268 [140:6]).
37 Liu, 1958, ii: 488-489, n. 7.
38 “Encyclopedic history of the institutions of government” authored by ^fe Du You (d. 812,
pub. 801, Wilkinson, 2018: 718; Liu, 1958, ii: 498-499), based on earlier sources.
39 “Magical mirror in the palace library” compiled in 1013 by a committee led by • -'li't'; Wang Qinrub (d.
1025, Wilkinson, 2018:1081-1082).
94-101). Even earlier, Clauson (1962/2002:15-16) presented evidence for what he
viewed as contact of “the ancestors of the historical Turks” with Sakas to their
southwest in southwestern Xinjiang “in the early centuries of the Christian era, but
perhaps not too much earlier.” These Turks would have neighbored with Indo-
European peoples in their west. It is useful to recall that speakers of Indo-
European languages predominated in the steppe zone north of Eastern
Turkistan/Xinjiang for a millennium and a half before the rise of the Türk
Qağanate (552). Together with Proto-Ugric peoples stemming from the Ural zone
and Western Siberia, these peoples were in contact with speakers of ProtoTurkic
and others. These contacts were ongoing even before the rise of the Xiongnu polity
(KljaStornyj, 1992: 129-130). Hence, Turko-Iranian interaction has a long history
antedating the rise of the Türk Qağanate
Writings from the Türks themselves appear in the latter part of the 6th century,
but not in Turkic. The earliest of these is the Bugut Inscription40 (dated between
ca. 584 and no later than 587), written in Sogdian and containing also some lines
written in Brahmi script that have been identified as “Mongolic,” very likely of
Rouran provenance, a language “closely related, although not quite identical to
Middle Mongolian of the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries” (Vovin, 2019: 163-164).
The Brahmi writing system,41 from Kusan times onward, was an “international
script, read from Samarkand to Benares” (Stark, 2018: 343), hence, like Sogdian,
the language of the Silk Road(s), it was intended to reach a wide public, regardless
of the language employing it. In the Sogdian part of the inscription we find: Bugut
1p tr-’wkt (’)syn’s [*tur[u]kit [?] asinas] translated by Yoshida (2019: 104-105) as
“Turkish Ashinas”, a reading which is disputed by Beckwith (2005: 14-16) who
asserts that Türk/Turk is otherwise written twrk in Sogdian texts. Gharib however,
records only the forms noted above.42 Sogdian and Mongolic Rouran/Avar,
although both very different lan-
40 On the symbolic features found on the Bugut inscription and similar stelae (e.g. Ider, Boroo)
inspired only in part by Chinese models, see Stark: 2018: 334-342.
41 Viewed as “the parent of all of the modern Indic scripts both within India and beyond” (Saloman,
1998:17), the inception or development of Brähmi has been dated as early as the 8th-7th centuries
bce, with some “geographical differentiation” apparent by the 1st-3rd centuries ce. The script’s
precise dating and origins (perhaps Aramaic) remain a matter of discussion (Saloman, 1998: 17-30,
37). It was used in East Turkistan/ Xinjiang to write Tokharian, Khotan Saka, Chinese and Turkic
(Clauson, 1962/2002: 91-96; User, 2015: 5963).
42 Cf. twrk on the legends of the Western Türk coins (noted above), unknown to Gharib. The Mount
Mug documents (B-9, Verso3, see Livsic, 2008:187,189) note twrk, but here it is a personal name

Turak. An older reading of the Sogdian part of the Uyğur Qara Bal- gasun inscription (810 or 821,
Kemp, 2004: 45) has: mn wyysty prnßyty R Bkw twrkc’ny 'ysywny “der vom Himmel Majestät
erhaltene grosse türkische Weltkönig” (Harmatta, guages, had a plural marker -t, as did
Old Turkic: -(A)t, -(U)t. Erdal (1991, i: 78-83), assumes it is a borrowing
from Sogdian, rather than Mongol, “if the Iranian origin of the suffix could
be proven conclusively” (Erdal, 2004: 158). It is almost always found in
words most probably borrowed from or intermediated by Rouran/Avar.
Pelliot (1915: 688) viewed them as Mongolisms in Old Turkic. The
Mongolküre Sogdian inscription from the Türk Qağanate, tentatively dated
to the late 6th-early 7th century, is not helpful in our quest as it does not con-
tain the term Türk (Osawa, 2006). Oğllt ($N¥>) “sons,” a plural from oğul, in
kt-E4—5, bq-E5 appears to be one of the few “native” Turkic exceptions
(User, 2010: 252; Şirin, 2015: 128; Kononov, 1980: 147: oğlıt “potomki”).
Clauson (1972; 83-84) notes: oğul “offspring, child, son” and oğlan “son,
boy,” an earlier plural in -(A)n, but not oğlıt.43
One school of thought contends that Chin. ^^ Tüjue reflects Sogdian Twrkyt =
Turkit/ Turklt/ or Turket Harmatta (1972:263-272, see also comments of Bailey,
1982: 85). The Sogdians were the principal intermediaries between the Türks,
China, Sâsânid Iran and East Rome/Byzantium. Indeed, Bugut ip tr-’wkt
(*tur[u]kit [?]44) (’)syn’s and Bugut 12 trwkc [trukc] (Gharib, 2004: 389 [9635:
trwkt, turkt “Turks”], 391 [9682: trukc]), an adjectival form (noted by Gharib as
Bugut-B12, but not found in Yoshida, 1999: 123-124, Yoshida, 2019: 104-105, nor
Ölmez, 2012:67-70) hint at a form with -ü-. Bugut ip tr-’wkt (’)syn’s (*t1rükit [?])
asinas is translated by Yoshida (2019:104-105) as “Turkish Ashinas.”
1962: 149, citing Hansen, 1930: 15) with twrkc’ny as an adjectival form of twrk (cf. also Sims-
Williams and Durkin-Meisterernst, 2012: 194). The recent readings by Yoshida lack these words
(Moriyasu and Ochir, 1999: 215-219; Ölmez, 2012:225-229). Some of the problems with the poorly
preserved Qara Balgasun inscription and some variant readings are noted by Yoshida, 2011: 77-86,
see also his entry in the Encyclopedia Iranica: http://www
.iranicaonline.org/articles/karabalgasun-the-inscription.
43 Tekin, 1968:122; Tekin, 2003: 102 also cites: yılpağut “champion warriors” < *yılpağu ~ alpağu and
qanat “wing,” but these are problematic.
44 Rona-Tas, 1999:279, reads this as trkwt = türküt with Sogd. plural-t or Sogd. adjectival ending -kut:
“turkkut” > “twrkut or türküt.” Tisin, 2017: 287-288, offers the suggestion that the twrk in the
legends on the Western Türk coins (twrk x’y’n, see Babayarov, 2017: 615-635; Kubatin, 2017:119)
can be identified with the tr’kwt of Bugut and with the Western Türk sub-union of the 4-» [on oq]
On Oq known as the ^^ duo lu mc twat ljuk (Schuessler, 2009: 314 [3i-i6h], 188 [i4-i6f]) mc twot
Ijuwk (Kroll: 97, 285), tuatljuk Old nw Chin. tot luk > Mid-Tang Chang’an torluk (Coblin, 1994:
355 [sub 0785], 459 [1171])/düo/dülu ^^ emc ta luwk imc tua liwk (Pulleyblank, 1991: 81 [163:9],
20i [17Û:8])/Â düo/düliu emc ta luwk imc tua liwk (Pulleyblank, 1991:81 [163:9], 198 [12:2]) and
Â duoliu mc twat ljuk (Schuessler, 2009: 314 [31-16h], 188 [14-16a]), mc twot ljuwk (Kroll: 97,
279), tuat ljuk Old n w Chin. tot luk > Mid-Tang Chang’an tor luk (Coblin, 1994: 355 [sub 0785],
459 [1171]) “with the characteristic metathesis -ur > -ru.” This is an interesting conjecture, which

14 golden
would appear to favor the readings of the mc forms as *türük.
A closer examination of the Chinese form ^^ Tüjué is warranted.45 Its mc
reconstructions vary: emc dwat kuat, imc tñut kyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 311 [116:4],
168 [27:10]), mc t’uat/dwat kiwet (Karlgren, 1996: 134 [48gq], 90- 9i[30ic]),
updated as thwat, dwatkjwet (Schuessler, 2009: [31-12a], 240 [22-23]), mc thwot-
kjwot (Kroll, 2015: 459), and much more rarely ^^ Tüquè: emc dwatkhuat, imc
tüutkhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991:311 [116:4], 263 [169:10]), mc t’uat k’iwet (Karlgren,
1996:134 [489a], 91 [301h]), updated as thwat, dwatkjwetkhjwet (Schuessler,
2009: [31-12a], 240 [22-2h]), thwot khwet, khjwot (Kroll, 2015: 459, 382), and ^®
Tüqü emc: dwatkhut, imc: thutkhyt (Pulleyblank, 1991:311 [116:4], 269 [44:5]); mc
t’uat k’iuat (Karlgren, 1996:134 [489a], 135[496k]), updated as thwat, dwat
khjwat, kjwat (Schuessler, 2009: [31-12a], 314 [31-16k]), thwot khjut (Kroll, 2015:
459, 375), duet kiuet (Jiu Tanghsu, 2005: xiv, 345, the reconstructions noted in the
latter are based on the work of K^^ Wáng Li Zhù, 'Kioto ^K Hànyüyüyln shi, Beijing,
1985 [1986], reviewed and improved by one of the editors of the Turkish
edition/translation, Gülnar Kara). To these we may add ^ ^ Tüjué: Northwestern
Tang t’oj.-kyj. (Harmatta, 1972:263). Old Northwest Chin. *dot kuat (Coblin, 1994:
355 [sub 0785], 339 [0733]). Pulleyblank (1965: 122, 124), while noting the
possibility that ^^ Tüjué could render Türküt, comments that the latter form is
nowhere attested and concludes it is simply a rendering of Türk. Beckwith (2005:
13) concurs, remarking in his rejection of Türküt and readings based on “a
hypothetical Sogdian *twrkyt [turklt]” that “there are no transcriptions like
*Türküt or *Turklt in any language, including Sogdian.” However, the most recent
study of the Chinese transcriptions of Old Turkic by Kasai (2014:103-110)
concluded that ^^ Tüjué is, indeed, a rendering of Türküt, a reading first proposed
by Marquart in 1914 (Marquart, 1914/1970: 71-72, n. 4) and shortly thereafter by
Pelliot (1915: 687-689) a form mediated, perhaps, by the language of the ^^
Róurán/Avars, who have long been thought to have spoken Mongolic, a conclusion,
which appears now to be confirmed by the Khüis
45 A Turko-Chinese dictionary, KKo i Tûjueyü, was already available in the Tang era (Liu, 1957:198-199;
Liu, 1958, i: 465-466; Schaefer, 1963/1985: 29, 285, n. 175). Other evidence for the presence in the
Chinese court of persons with a knowledge of Turkic even earlier than the Sui-era can be seen in
the request of the Türk Qağan Tatpar Chin. K^ Tuobo emc: tha pat lmc: tha puat (Pulleyblank,
1991: 313 [9:5], 40 [167:5]), who had become interested in Buddhism, in 572 for a translation into
Turkic of a Buddhist text carried out by Chinese monks (Liu, i: 43; Lung, 2008:182,184; Tisin,
2019:117). Lung’s conclusion that “a written Tür- kic language was already in use by the mid-sixth
century” remains speculative. The question of which script system was used for these Turkic texts is
far from clear and the text has not been found. The Zhoushu (cap. 50) comments that the writing
system of the Türk was similar to that of the Hu (Sogdians), but the Suishu (cap. 84; Liu, 1958, i: i:
10,41; Lung, 2008: 178) reports that the Türks lacked a written language and carved marks on
wood.
Tolgoi inscription (see below). Before turning to the new reading of the Khüis

Tolgoi inscription, other data should be explored.
It is with the appearance of the Türk runiform inscriptions46 from the Orxon,
written in Turkic and composed during the Second Türk Qağanate, that we first
find the ethnonym Türk in Turkic. The dating of a number of the Orxon runiform
Türk texts remains disputed, although all stem from the Second Türk Qağanate
(682-743/744). The earliest of the Orxon Türk inscriptions, Küli/Köli Ğor
Inscription, 4,6,8 (720-725, or 722-723, after 732?, see above), has ^TPk türk/tWrk
and RhPk türük (Aydın, 2017:134,135; Berta, 2004:5,6, has only tWrk, with line 8
missing the final letter: tWr[]). The Ongi Inscription (dated to 720, 731, 740 or
even to the early period of the Uyğur Qağanate, Kemp, 2004: 46; Aydın, 2017:121,
Aydın, 2018:164) has: Ongi-E2,3: ^TPk türk/tWrk (Aydın, 2017:122; Berta. 2004:
212). The Tonyuquq inscription (726) has both ^TPk türk/tWrk/ (T1-W1,2,3, T1-
S2,4, 10, E1,3,5, Aydın, 2019:175, 177, 178, 179, 180; Berta, 2004: 32, 33, 34) and
RhPk = BTPk: türük/tWrWk7 (T2-S2,6, E4,8, ^,3,4; Aydın, 2019:186, 187, 189;
Berta, 2004: 39, 40, 41, 42). The Köl Tegin (732) and Bilge Qağan (735)
inscriptions have RhPk/ BTPk türük/tWrwk (e.g. kt-Sı, liO-N,: Aydın, 2017: 47, 74
et passim, Berta, 2004: 96 et passim). The early Uyğur inscriptions present a
similar pattern: Taryat/Terxin-E5,7,8 (dated between 741-753 or 753-756, Aydın,
2018a: 38; see the most recent discussion of the literature in Ölmez, 2018:74-78):
BTPk türük/tWrwk (Aydın, 2018a: 41 42; Berta, 2004: 245), Sine-Usu-N,8,10, S8,
W8 (759): BTPk türük/tWrwk (Aydın, 2018a: 52, 53, 61, 65; Berta, 2004: 271, 272,
278, 281). The full listing of citations is given in User (2010: 168-171). In the texts,
it usually takes the form of RhPk / >#>ö BTPk (türükbo/udun {boSun48}etc.). It is
found only once in the Yenisei inscriptions: Uybat iiii 0: >rl^TPk türkqan (and
perhaps in Podkuninskaya2: P^TPk türki: Aydın, 2015: 94-95,140). The variant
forms in the Orxon inscriptions may well indicate a not yet stabilized writing
system, representing, perhaps, oral speech or “somewhat edited” versions of the
original texts (Tisin, 2019: 120-121). The different forms in which Türk has
appeared in the Turkic texts has resulted in various transcriptions: Türk, Törük,
Türük/Türük etc. (Doerfer, tmen, ii: 483-495; Erdal, 2004: 38-39; 293; Kafesoğlu,
2014: 11-25; Ölmez, 2012: 78-79 et passim; Tisin, 2017: 271-272, n. 4 [türek, an
early form and subsequently türük]; Aydın, 2018a:187). Bazin (1953: 321)
suggested an evolution of Törük > Türük > Türk. The form Türkü, “with a short
final vowel” was proffered by Clauson (1962/2002: 84-88, who argued that it
remained türkü until the 11th century or perhaps shifted to türk “a little earlier”),
rejected by Pulleyblank, (1965: 122, n. 4, 124-125), and accepted by Rona-Tas and
Berta (2011: 939): eot * türkü and wot * türkü ^ türkü > türk > türük > török, cf.
Hung. török. Rona-Tas (1999:278-279), in his earlier study also excluded the
reading türük, preferring türkü and suggesting that the final -ü had become
reduced and atrophied, producing Türk. The form türkü has not otherwise found
wide acceptance in the recent editions of the Türk Runiform texts.

16 golden
This brings us to the question of the transcription of this ethnonym in sources
written well beyond the Sino-Nomadic border zone, but recorded by peoples in
direct contact with the Türks. An important source of data on the Türks who had
just made their appearance on the larger historical stage was contained in the
Xwadäynämag,49 (“Book of Kings”), a fundamental source for the history of the
Sâsânids and, in the Kärnämag-l Ardaxser [Ardaslr] l Päbagän (written in Middle
Persian, perhaps in the mid-6th century with later interpolations by 706,
Pourshariati, 2008: 46; Cereti, 2012). Elements from the Xwadäynämag have
come down to us in translated fragments, in particular in Arabic.50 An Arab
translation of a “biography” or autobiography (Slrat Anüsirwän) or Kärnämag of
Xusrö i Anösagruwan (Anüsirwän) is preserved in the Tajärib al-Umam of Ibn
Miskawayh (d. 1030; Grignaschi, 1966: 4-7, 16-45;
Hämeen-Antilla, 2018:122-123)^1 TheKarnamag-tArdaxser [Ardasır] ıPabagan
(xrv.19) mentions the: Kesar IHrömayan sahryar ud Tegin [t] Kabul IHindügan
sah ud Tork [Turk] (i)xakan “Caesar the ruler of the Romans, the Tegin of Kabul,
king of the Indians, the Qagan of the Turks” (Cunakova, 1987: 62-63; Grenet,
2003: 116/117).
The Sasanid ruler Xusro i (r. 531-579) married a daughter of Sir Jabgu Qagan/
Istami (d. 576), Qaqum/Qaqim [^515], the daughter of “the Xaqan of Turk-
istan.”52 This was part of a larger alliance aimed at the Hephthalites. There were
several campaigns of the Sâsânids and Türks that began ca. 557 and were
concluded (with the destruction of the Hephthalite state) by 560/561 (see Grig-
naschi, 1984: 219-248; Felfoldi, 2005: 98-132; Rezakhani, 2017: 141-143). Frag-
ments of the Xwadaynamag point to written communications between the “allies”
(Grignaschi, 1966: 24-25), soon to become foes after the Hephthalites were
removed. The language used in such written communications most probably was
Middle Persian or Sogdian.
An important source of elements from the Xwadaynamag53 that mention the
Türks are narratives (semi-mythic and historical) found in Armenian and
Georgian accounts. Both lands were within the sphere of influence and sometimes
part of the Sasanid realm and presented their early history, to some degree, within
an Iranian context. In the earliest or oldest parts of the K’art’lis C’xovreba, the
Georgian national chronicle,54 the C’xovrebay k’art’velt’a mep’et’a or Mep’et’a
c’xovrebay: C’xovrebay k’art’vel’ta mep’et’a da pirvelt’agania mamat’a da
nat’esavt’a [“Life (History) of the Georgian Kings: or Life (History) of the Georgian
Kings and of the First Ancestors and Relatives,” attributed to Leonti Mroveli,
composed ca. 790-813,55 which covers the period from largely legendary Georgian
rulers, “before Alexander’s alleged invasion” of Georgia “through the early fourth
century a. d.,” i.e. largely the pre-Christian era of Georgian history. The
indebtedness to “the Iranian epic tradition,” to the Xwadaynamag and the
importance for the Georgians of “oral traditions shared with the Iranians,

Armenians and northern Caucasians” are apparent. These tales/motifs were
familiar to Transcaucasian intellectuals (Rapp, 1997: 55-56; Rapp, 2003: 114, 116;
Rapp, 2014: 191-198).56 In one instance, specific mention is made of the “book” of
the History of the Persians (cignsa spars’ta c’xovrebisasa). In the opening section
of the work attributed to Leonti Mroveli, dealing with a largely remote past a
number of references are made to OTgftjgmo T’urket’i “the land of the Türks,”57
and the mgftjo (t’urk’i), noting that the information came from the Life (History)
of the Persians, i.e. the Xwadaynamag (K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955-1959: i:i2,13,14;
K’art’lis C’xovreba 2008:33,34; Rapp, 2003:114). Filled with a number of
anachronistic references to the “T’urk’s” and Khazars (often used interchangeably),
these constitute our earliest notices that mention the Türks, however inaccurately,
in Georgian historiography.
In the section dealing with Alexander the Great’s activities in Georgia,58
mention is made of the “cruel pagan peoples” (nat’esavni sastikni carmartni), the
ögBmgftjo (bunt’urk’i59). Rapp (2003: 149-150, 264-265) rightly terms them
“enigmatic.” They may have denoted any of the nomadic neighbors of
Transcaucasia from the Cimmerians to the Huns or even later groups in the Pontic
steppes. Subsequently, Rapp (2014: 132-133) suggested that bun in bunt’urk’i is
Middle Pers. bun “base, foundation” i.e. “original,” hence these are the “original
Turks.”60 Its absence in the Armenian translation of the K’art’lis C’xovreba may
well indicate that it is a later interpolation. Hence, it is unlikely to be a translation
of Old Turkic kök (“root, origin” see above).
In the Cxovrebay Vaxtang Gorgaslisa [“Life of Vaxtang Gorgasal”] attributed to
Juanser Juanseriani (Pseudo-Juanser, writing ca. 790-813)61 in its account of the
events preceding the revolt (589-591) of Bahram Ğöbın (Vahram Ğöben), who
sought to take the Sasanid throne, we are dealing with more concrete matters.
Following the reign of Bakur iii (d. 580),62 “the king of the Türks invaded

18 golden
Persia” (sevida t’urk’t’a mep’e sparset’s sina).14 15 16 17 Not long thereafter, JuanSer,
deriving his information from the Xwadaynamag, reports that: “Baram C’ubin
attacked the Turks ... as is clearly described in the Life (History) of the Persians
(vit’ar cerili ars ganc’xadebulad c’xovrebasa sparst’a),” defeated them and killed
“Saba, the king of the Turks.”64 The account then describes Bahram Cobin’s ulti-
mately unsuccessful revolt (589-591)^5
During the protracted Perso-Byzantine war of 602-628, the Georgians remained
loyal to Iran. The Byzantine Emperor Herakleios (r. 610-641), allied with the Turks
(identified in a number of the sources as Khazars) in the offensive undertaken in
626-628, besieged T’bilisi. (Pseudo-) Juanser comments that Herakleios “brought
Turks from the west” miiqvanna dasavlet’it’ t’urk’ni (K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955-
1973, i: 223, K’art’lis C’xovreba, 2003: 229), i.e. the Western Turks of Ton (Tog)
Yabgu Qagan.66 By this time, the ethnicon T’urk’i had been well- established in
Georgian historical writing. Later interpolations interchanged T’urk’i and Xazari
(Rapp, 2014: 199-200) and inserted anachronistic references to the Pecenegs and
Qipcaqs.
In early Armenian accounts we find: Pnirpp T’urk’k’ (pl.) in the Geography of
Sirakac’i, writing ca. 591-636 with later additions in 640s and subsequent
interpolations by other hands (Sirakac’i, 1992: 33, 55,109-110, n. 17; Marquart,
1903/1961: 57), building on Greek and Middle Iranian sources (Greenwood, 2018).
Sebeos mentions the “Great Xak’an” as well as Cembux (Öhdpnt^) and Cepetux
(Öh^hsm^), which seem “to be one and the same title” in a “mangled” form, most
14 K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955-1973, i: 217, K’art’lis C’xovreba, 2008:226. Rapp (2003): 228, places
this Türk attack during the reign of Bakur iii, however, the K’art’lis C’xovreba clearly places the
event after the latter’s death. With Bakur iii’s death, the Georgian monarchy underwent a long
interregnum until the reemergence of the Crown under the Bagratids in 888. Guaram i (588-c.
590), under whom this attack most likely occurred, succeeded his father Bakur iii, but not as king
(Toumanoff, 1963: 201-203; Toumanoff, 1976: 388-391 [80,81]; Rapp, 2014: 386-387).
15 K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955-1973, i: 220. The recent edition, K’art’lis C’xovreba, 2008: 227, omits
mention of Saba (Saba), noting only that “Baram C’ubini ... killed the king of the Turks and put
their (military) camp to flight” (mokla t’urk’t’a mep’e da iota banaki mat’i). See the translation of
Rapp, 2014:195,343, which slightly differs from mine. Bahram Cobin’s defeat and killing of the
Türk ruler, Saba/Saba is generally dated to 589, immediately preceding his revolt (see discussion in
Golden, 2016: 31-41).
16 The outlines of the revolt of “Warahran Raziqaya” (of Rayy) and mention of the Turkâye are given
in the Syriac Khuzistan Chronicle (ca. 660-680), see Kmosko, 2004:140-142 and Dickens, 2008:
59-63 For the most recent discussion of the revolt, see Pourshariati, 2009: 122-130, 397-414
(largely dealing with the symbolic subtexts in the accounts).
17 See discussion in Novosel’cev, 1990: 86-88; Kaegi, 2003: 144-145; Zuckerman, 2007: 404 417;
Rapp, 2014:345-346. Chavannes, 1941/1969:3,4, 24-28, 52-55 etpassim: ^^ ^ Tong she/yehu emc:
thawrh’ eiap/jiap yoh1 imc: thawr/h'¡şiap/jiap xfiui' (Pulleyblank, 1991: 310 [120:6], 279/364
[140:9], 128 [149:14]); mc thuwngH yep-huH, (Kroll, 2015: 458, 540): Tog Yabğu or Ton Yabğu (cf.
Sogd. forms: twn cpyw, twn zpyu, twn zpyw x’y’n: Ton Jabgu, Ton Z/Zabgu Qağan, Lurje, 2010:
394-395; Babayar, 2014:16; Kubatin, 2017:117,120-121). The Yabğu/Jabğu Qağan was a rank lower
than the supreme Qağan. Ton/Tog Jabğu/Yabğu Qağan ruled c. 618-630 (628/29, according to de
La Vaissiere, 2010: 269).

probably Jabğu Qağan, all clearly referring to the rulers of the Türk Qağanate.
Sebeos never uses the ethnicon Türk. The nomads of these events (ca. 589, ca. 615-
616 and 651) are termed “Hephthalites” (T’etal, see above) and/or “Kusans”
(Sebeos, 1999, i: 14-16, 45, 50-54,135, ii: 187-188). The mangling of the titles, it has
been suggested, was the result of its transmission from Turkic to Middle Persian
and then to Armenian.
In the East Roman/Byzantine accounts, the first mention of the Türks is found
in Agathias’s Histories (ca. 532-ca. 580), which covered the period 552559 (odb, i:
35-36). He was a contemporary of the founding generation of the Türk Qağanate.
In a passing aside (i.3,4) in his account of the Franks, the Türks are mentioned
together with the Avars as peoples whose hair is “unkempt, dry and dirty and tied
up in an unsightly knot” (Agathias, 1967: 13; Agathias, 1975: 11; Harmatta, 1962:
133). Agathias had knowledge of various Turkic nomadic peoples, generically noted
as “Scythians and Huns” (ZKÛSai xa'i OSvvoi) living “in ancient times” to the “east
of the Maeotis” (Sea of Azov) and north of Don river (Tavatç) who had crossed into
the Pontic steppe and from there raided Europe, appearing and disappearing, some
“without leaving any trace of themselves” (Agathias, 1967: 176-177, Agathias, 1975:
146). Curiously, there is no explanatory preface to his comments on the Türks.
Theophanes Byzantios (fl. latter half of the 6th century, fragments of his Historika,
which covered the period 566-581, are preserved in Photius, odb, iii: 2062;
Moravcsik, 1958, i: 539-540, the pertinent text is in Dinsdorf, 1870: 446-447)
reports in language that is nearly identical to that of Agathias, his contemporary,
that the Tovpxot, “who dwelled in olden times to the east of the Don (npoç süpov
âvsôv TOÛ Tavai- Soç) (and) were previously called the MaaaayeTat, 18 whom the
Persians call in their own tongue Ksppx^vsq” (Pahl. KarmlrXyon, “Red Huns”)
one of the “Hunnic” groupings on the borders of Iran, perhaps to be identified with
the
Alxans, although the name Alxan, if they are indeed a Turkic-speaking grouping, is
most probably not the Turkic name of the KarmlrXyon (Rezakhani, 2017: 107-
108). In any event, Theophanes Byzantios is conflating several different nomadic
peoples. This notice is followed by a brief account of Turk-Byzantine relations and
embassies during the time of Justinian (527-565) and Justin ii (565-578). John
Malalas (ca. 490-d. after 565), whose History provides a contemporary account of
the reign of Justinian i (r. 527-565; Treadgold, 2010: 235256), reports that in July,
18 An interesting echo of this “classicism” is perhaps to be found in Sebeos’s Mazk’ut’k’ whose
“great king” Bahram Cobm (Vahram Merhewandak [Mihrevandak]) attacked and defeated in the
area “beyond the great river” (Sebeos, i: 15, ii: 168). This would appear to refer to Bahram Cobin’s
victory over the Turks around Herat in 589, but has been conflated with events in the North
Caucasus. The identification of the Mazk’ut’k in Armenian sources, however, remains problematic.
Marquart (1901: 65,83-84) viewed this as a reference to the Turks (as also found in Theophanes
Byzantios) and the “great river” as the Oxus. The “great king” slain by Bahram was Saba. For
various views of the problem, see Lewicki (1956-1988, i: 73,117, n. 117), who identified it with the
territory of the “King of Masqat” (ii-JJ ¿J*)

20 golden
563, an embassy came to Constantinople from “Askel, king of the Hermichiones
who dwell inland of the barbarian nation near the Ocean” (Malalas, 1831: 496;
Malalas, 1986: 304). As the text of Malalas breaks off just before the Hermichion
embassy, it is reconstructed from the later text in Theophanes (d. 818), which
closely follows him and reports an embassy in 562/563 to Constantinople
of’AJK^X, TOU pnY°i 'Ep^nXl°vwv, TOU eawSev KSI^SVOU TOU TWV |3ap|3dptov
s’Qvouq nXn<flov TOU ¿Ksavou “Askel, king of the Hermichions, who dwell inland
of the barbarian nation near the Ocean” (Theophanes, 18831885/1980, i: 239,
Theophanes, 1997: 351, 352, n. 23; Dickens, 2008: 48; Dickens, 2016: 113). Sinor
(1990: 302), among others, believes that “Hermichions” (most probably a variant
or corruption of Ksppx^vsq) were the Turks. Whether the 'Ep^nX l°VE; ~
Ksppx^vsq were the Turks,68 or perhaps some Xiyon/Hephthalite grouping now
subject to them is unclear as is the question of whether this was, indeed, the first
Turk-Byzantine contact. The complications of the question are discussed by Pohl
(2018: 50-51). The Middle Persian Zand I Wahman Yasn69 in a listing of non-
Aryan (aneran) peoples, records, among others, the xyon [hyon], turk and the
karmlr-xyon [hyon] separately, noting the latter between the hromaylg “Romans”
and sped-xyon “White Huns” (Rezakhani, 2017:107-108, 135-136; Cereti,
1995:139). Here, a distinction is made between turk and karmlrxyon [hyon]. Cf.
also Pahlavi twrk [tu’lkw] (Harmatta, 1962: 132).
For our immediate purposes far more certain are the notices in Menander the
Guardsman/Protector (^poTÍKTwp “palace guardsman”), who composed his
History, which has survived in fragments preserved in later works, during the reign
of the East Roman/Byzantine Emperor Maurikios (582-602), i.e.
of Ibn Xurradadbih (1889:124), located in the North Caucasus; see also comments of Gar- soian in
P’awstos Buzand, 1989:389-390 and of Hewsen in Sirakac’i, 1992:45A, 57,57A, 75, 121-122, n. 103.
68 Harmatta (1962:146) affirms that KarmlrXyon was the name used by the Persians to denote
the Turks and the Persians, accordingly, were the intermediaries who introduced the Turks to the
Byzantines.
69 The dating of the Zand ¡Wahman Yasn is uncertain with estimates ranging from the late Achaemenid
era to the Islamic era, with various hands taking part in the form in which it is found today (Cereti,
1995: 1-2).
roughly within the period of the Bugut and Khüis Tolgoi inscriptions. Menander
appears to have had access to imperial archives, although this is not absolutely
certain. He did not use John of Ephesus’s account (Whitby, 1988: 243244;
Dickens, 2016:113,121-122). His History, meant to be a continuation of the work of
Agathias, covers the period 557/558-582 and shows considerable interest in
eastern affairs, relations with the Türks and Sâsânid Iran (odb, ii:1338; Menander,
1985:1-30). Already well into his account, Menander, in a comment prefacing his
remarks on the embassy of Zemarkhos dispatched by the Emperor Justin ii (r. 565-
578) in August, 569 (on the embassy, see Dobrovits, 2011: 373-409; Dickens, 2016:

112-131),70 reports that the Türks “had been formerly called the Sacae” (OTI TÛV
ToupKWV ZaKÛv KaXou^svwv TO naXai..., Menander, 1985:116/117; Zdanovic,
2014:10, 13). Moravcsik (1958, ii: 264) considered this an “archaism.” Blockley
(Menander, 1985: 263, n. 124) in his commentary to Menander’s text, remarks that
Sacae (Saxai), already noted in Herodotus, was a “general Persian term for the
nomads of Central Asia who lived outside the oases.” Actually, Saka was the
Persian term for the Scythians (Frye, 1963: 40-42; Herodotus, 1982: 181-183, n. 37,
392-394, n. 752). However, this usage, ZaKai, is unique to Menander and may
point not to an archaicizing ethnicon, but to an older Türk connection. Menander’s
account of Zemarkhos’s embassy notes a number of ethnic designations: TÛV
XoXiaTOV, “of the Kholiatai,” most probably the Kwls71 in the passage on the
nomads north of the Caucasus of PseudoZacharias Rhetor written ca. 555,72 the
XEM-THCM “Khorezmians” of the Old Rus’
70 The account of John of Ephesus is probably the earliest of the narratives that deal with Zemarkhos’s
embassy (Dickens, 2016: 114). A fragment of what remains of the History of John of Epiphaneios,
(ca. 550-early 7th century, Treadgold, 2010: 308-310) a relative of Evagrios, briefly notes the
embassy of the Toupxuv to Justin 11 that resulted in the sending of the reciprocal embassy of
Zemarkhos (fhg iv.273-274; Greatrex and Lieu, 2002: 141). His work, probably completed in the
early 7th century, was an important source on the wars of Maurikios with Iran and was used by
Theophylaktos Simokattes. As a court lawyer and a participant in a Byzantine embassy to Iran in
the 590s, John had direct contact with Xusro 11 “and other leading Persians” (Whitby, 1988: 222-
227).
71 Kmosko, 2004:99 (Külas); Dickens, 2008:28; Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, 2011:450 (Khulas).
72 “Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor,” an anonymous Syriac “epitome and extension” dated to ca. 568/69 c e of
the now lost Greek Ecclesiastical History of Zachariah Rhetor (“Zachariah Scholasticus”), which
covers the latter half of the 5th century. “Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor,” has a section (an appendix) on
the North Caucasian steppe peoples, written, it is noted, in 555, shortly after the rise of the Türk
Qağanate (Dickens, 2008:19-20; Kmosko, 2004: 47-48; Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, 2011: 32).
Czegledy, 1971:133-148, remains an important study of the problems with this text, which
concludes (pp. 139, 141) that its mix of Middle Persian and Greek forms of ethnicons, including
those that are a mix of both, point to its source as a Middle Persian translation of a Greek source.
sources73 and hydronyms e.g. Aa'i/ = Jayıq/Yayıq (the Ural River), sç TOV
’ATTİAKV “to the Atıl (Volga),” TaXaç (the Talas, a place from which Zemarkhos
and his companions, after a sojourn with Sir Jabğu Qağan, began their return
journey to Constantinople, Menander, 1985:120/121-124/125). These names must
have been learned from natives.74 It may also be pointed out that the Türk
embassy to Justin ii in 568 was led by Maviax, a leader of the Sogdians, who had
previously been under Hephthalite rule and were now subjects of the Türks. The
latter had first sent two embassies to the Sâsânids, one led by Mavıâx?5 which had
ended unsuccessfully (the last one drastically so with fatal consequences for the
representatives of the Türks, see de La Vaissiere, 2016: 204-211 for the full
context), which induced Sir Jabğu/ZıXZiŞouXoç Qağan,76 i.e. Istami (Menander,

22 golden
1985: 44/45, 172/173, 178/179) to turn to Constantinople, perhaps pressed by the
Sogdian merchants anxious to maintain their position in the traffic of the Silk
Road, following the collapse of the Sogdo-Türk dealings with the Sâsânids noted
above (Zdanovic, 2014:8-9). The Türk embassy stands in sharp contrast to the Avar
embassy to Constantinople that preceded it by a decade.77
73 pvi, 1996:9: U3 Pycu MO'/itemt, UTU no Bo^3₺ B Bo^rapti u BB XBELIUCBI; p. 388: Xvalisy - Old
Rus’ name for Xwarazm, cf. XBa^BiHCKoe Mope “Caspian Sea.”
74 The embassy reached the ’EKT«Y, which Menander (1985:118/119) translates as “Golden Mountain”
(/pucoûv opoç). The location of this site, perhaps Turkic *Aqtağ (lit. “White Mountain”) has long
been the subject of discussion. ’EKTO!Y/Aqtağ cannot mean “Golden Mountain,” i.e. the Altay,
Altun Yis in Old Turkic and Chin. ^ I Il Jmshan (see below). Dobrovits, 2008: 386-387 suggests
that Aqtağ may be any “snowy mountain,” perhaps in “somewhere in the Altai ranges.” Again, we
are dealing with toponyms learned in situ from the local inhabitants.
75 A seasoned veteran “diplomat” in the Türk-Sogdian commercial symbiosis, with Sogdians
playing a variety of roles, administrative, military and diplomatic, in the Türk Qağanate, de La
Vaissiere, 2016: 182-184.
76 Harmatta, 1962:149-150 has ZıZâj3ouXoç (Menander, 1985:118/119-125/in connection with the account
of the embassy of Zamarkhos) and posits a Sogdian form *Sljaflu or *Sizaflu from Sirjaflu or
*Sirzaflu. Dobrovits, 2004:111-114; Dobrovits, 2008: 75-77 notes the Bactrian form cpi ianYVfiaxo
sri iapgu saho, which he suggests was the title used by İstami’s Iranian subjects. Older mistaken
forms were AıZâ(3ouXoç, AıXZi(3ouXoç, noted in Moravc- sik, 1958,11: 275-276. He is recorded in
Arab historico-geographical texts as Sinjibu (text: j^t^) Xaqan (cf. Ibn Xurradadbih, 1889: 39-40;
Ibn al-Faqih, 1996: 649). The Sinjeblk xagan of the Sahrestanlha lEransahr: 13 (line 90), an mp
text from “late Antiquity.”
77 The Avars who dispatched the embassy of 558 (see below) were, apparently, newly arrived
in the Pontic steppe zone “after many wanderings,” i.e. the flight from the Türks (?). In this
instance, Zapucioç, the “leader of the Alans” (TQÛ AXavwv ^Yob^^vou) served as the intermediary.
The Avar ambassador, KavSi/, boasted of the “invincible” power of the Avars and sought an alliance
with Constantinople, but only if the East Romans/Byzantines would give them “valuable gifts,
yearly payments and very fertile land to inhabit” (Menander, 1985:48/49); but other accounts
remark that they had come as “fugitives” (ÇUYOVTEÇ) from
Maviax brought with him a letter in “Scythian” (TO ypdâ ZKUQIKOV, Menander,
1985:110/111-116/117), most probably in Sogdian (de LaVaissiere, 2016:182). 19 20
Thus, the latter is the likely source language for the word ToûpKOÇ in Byzantine
Greek (Sogd. twrk). It is unlikely that SKUQIKOV, which was used as a generic for
Central Asian peoples (Kaldellis, 2013: 83, 114-115), a term that would also include
the Sogdians, who are in the same text noted under their own name, SoySaiTai,
denoted the actual language of the Türks (Menander, 1985:110/111, 263, n. 119).
The Türks had not yet developed a writing system for Turkic. The earliest written
19their own land to “Scythia and Mysia” (Theophanes, 1980, i: 232; Theophanes, 1997: 339 340).
The request for habitable land very probably indicated that the Avars were not yet secure in their
habitat of the moment and fearful of the oncoming Türks. Overall, see discussion in Pohl, 2018: 21-
22, 37, 47.
20 Lung (2008:181,183-184) posits a letter written in Turkic with some Sogdian (“Scythian”) loan
words, but we lack the letter, hence such a conclusion is speculative.

material from the Türks that is known to us is in Sogdian (the Bugut Inscription,
which also contains a section in Mongolic, written in Brahmi script, see below).
Sogdian was the lingua franca of the Silk Road (Foltz, 2010: 14-15). The Türk
embassy was led by a Sogdian, accompanied, undoubtedly, by other Sogdians and
it would be expected that a translator for a letter in Sogdian could be found in
Constantinople.
The Türks (ToûpKOUç) are recorded by Evagrius (Euagrios, d. after 594),
roughly a contemporary of Menander, in his Ecclesiastical History (v.1) written in
593/4 (Evagrius, 2000: xx, xxii-xxxiv, on the sources used by Evagrius, which did
not include Menander, see p. xxiii, n. 53 and Whitby, 1988: 244-245 for a critique
of this author). Evagrius mentions them in his brief notice on the flight of the
Avars, “a Scythian race” of “wagon-dwellers” in the steppes who had “fled en masse
from their neighbours, the Turks, after being ill-treated by them,” and had come to
the Bosporus and eventually “sent an embassy to Justinian” (Eva- grius, 1898: 196;
Evagrius, 2000: 255 and n. 5, which dates diplomatic overtures via the Alans to
Constantinople ca. 558). The Türks are next mentioned (v i.15, Evagrius, 1898:
233; Evagrius, 2000: 307) in connection with “Persian general” Bahram Ğöbin
(Bapdôu OTpaTnyov nspoûv) who returning from his victory over them, was
plotting the overthrow of Hormizd iv (see above). Once again, the Türks are noted,
but only in passing and without prefatory remarks. After 568, the Türks were
becoming a known entity in Constantinople.
Harmatta (1962:132-133), in an early work, argued for a Middle Persian/
Pahlavi transmission of the name Türk to the Byzantines, as this ethnonym was
known to the Persians before it became known to the Byzantines. He cites as
evidence for his viewpoint notices in Theophylaktos Simokattes (scr. 630s or early
640s, Neville, 2018: 48) who continued Menander’s History, focusing on the reign
of the Emperor Maurikios (582-602) and events thereafter up to 628. Simokattes
comments (iii.6.9, Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1972: 121, Theophy- laktos
Simokattes, 1986: 80): “after the Huns, who dwell towards the north-east and
whom it is customary for Persians to call Turks” (TWV Ouvvwv TOiYapoûv TÛV
npoç TÛ Şoppâ T^Ç ew, oûç ToûpKouç eövoç nspaaıç anoKaXsiv). Elsewhere,
Theophylaktos Simokattes (i.8.5) conveys the same information: “These are Huns
who dwell in the east as neighbours of the Persians and whom it is more familiar
for the many to call Turks” (Oûvvoı S’ OSTOI, npoffKoûvTSÇ Tfl sw, nspaûv
nXnaioxapoi, oûç xa'i ToûpKouç anoKaXsiv TOÎÇ noMoîç yvwpi^wTspov,
Theophylak- tos Simokattes, 1972: 54, Theophylaktos Simokattes, 1986: 30).
Simokattes may well have been aware of the Persian usages, but the word Türk, as
we have seen, was already familiar to those conducting foreign affairs in
Constantinople. Moreover, his source(s) had direct knowledge of ethnonyms,
toponyms and hydronyms used by the Türks (see above). In Byzantine sources,
ToûpKoı (Moravcsik, 1958, ii: 320-327), in addition to denoting the Türks and the

24 golden
Türk- derived, Khazars,79 also encompassed the Hungarians (see above), the
Vardar- iote “Turks,”80 Turkic ğulâms, Seljuks and Ottomans.
Roughly contemporaneous with, if not slightly earlier than the first East
Roman/early Byzantine accounts to mention the Türks are the Syriac sources in
which the Türks appear as: Turqaye, Turkaye, Turkaye, Turqaye (plural forms, i.e.
Turks) and Turqis, Turqios, Turiqi Dickens explains the differing forms of tran-
scription as stemming from the “inherent challenges” that translations from
foreign sources pose: i.e. Greek accounts for those living within the political
borders of the East Roman/Byzantine Empire (the “Western Syriac” authors) and
Middle Persian sources for those living under Sâsânid rule (the “Eastern Syriac”
authors), both adjusting foreign terms to the requirements of Syriac phonological
changes. Turqis, Turqios he derives from Greek Toupxiou; (Dick- 21 22 ens,
2008:32-33,56; Dickens, 2016:103,110,118,119). The “Western Syriac”Eccle-
siastical History (555) of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor with its catalogue of the
nomadic peoples of the “Hunnic Land” (BethHunaye)23 24 does not note the Türks.
The earliest mention of Türk appears to be in the “East” Syriac translation (“late
6th century”) of the Middle Persian translation of Kalilah and Dimnah, a work
originally written in Sanskrit, which has: Turqaye. By this time the Türks figured
significantly in Sasanid military-political calculations (Dickens, 2008: 30-34;
Dickens, 2016: 104-105). The similarly named “Western Syriac” Ecclesiastical
History of John of Ephesus (fl. ca. 507-588/9), Part iii (dealing with the period
571-588 and “based largely on his personal knowledge,” Dickens, 2016: 105-107;
for critical comments on his account, see Whitby, 1988: 245-248), records (vi.7)
the Turqis, (vi.12) Turqios (vi.7; v i.23; John of Ephesus, 1860: 388 and n. 425:
Turqis, Turchios; Greatrex and Lieu, 2002: 141; Dickens, 2008: 36-37, 41-45; Dick-
2179 The Türk connection of the Khazars is noted in the rendering of their name in the Tang-era
22Chinese sources: ^M ^ W Tüjue Kesa emc kha’sat imc kha 'sat (Pulleyblank, 1991:173 [30:2], 271
[140:14]), mc khaXsat (Kroll: 230,394): Türk Qazar and ^M®W TüjueHesâ, emc yatsat, imc
xhatsat (Pulleyblank, 1991:123 [73:5], 2711140:14]); mc hat sat (Kroll: 156, 394): TürkXazar,
^M^^WaR Tüjue zhl Kesa bu (the Khazar tribe of the Türk), ^M ^WaR Tüjue Kesa bu (the Türk
Khazar tribe) see discussion in Shirota (2005): 231-261.
80 The Vardariotai were a kind of “police corps” that formed part of the Byzantine imperial entourage in
the later Komnenian era (12th century, if not slightly earlier) into the 13th century. Initially
associated with a population settled on the Vardar river, their origins are uncertain. “Persian”
(quite possibly Turkic is meant here), Turkic (perhaps Hungarian) descent has been posited. The
issue remains unresolved (odb, iii:2153; Bartusis, 1992: 54, 271, 279-281, 283-284).
23 Dickens (2008: 20-30; Dickens, 2016: 104) provides a thorough analysis of the passage which
mentions a number of peoples, who were, undoubtedly, Turkic-speaking, as well as the most
probably newly-arrived European Avars (Âbar), but does not mention the Türks, who, very likely,
were not yet on the scene; see also Czeglédy, 1971:133-148; Kmosko, 2004: 98-100; Pseudo-
Zachariah Rhetor, 2011: 447-451. Pohl, 2018: 26-27, while acknowledging the importance of this
notice underscores the complexity of dealing with information that may have been transmitted
through the filters of Greek, Middle Persian and Syriac.
24 Beckwith (2006-2007: 9) revises Toüpâv9oç (Menander, 1985:176/177) to Toupxod® *Türk-
wath.

ens, 2016:118-119; Kmosko, 2004:129, n. 571,132: Turqios, Turqius). The notice on
the Turqaye whose possible approach caused the Avar Qağan to retreat to Sirmium
from Anchialos in 588 from the lost portion of John’s work has been preserved in
the Chronicle of Michael Syrus (d. 1199; x.211, see Dickens, 2016: 111-112).
Menander and John of Ephesus, contemporaries who apparently had access to
similar information/sources, some based on eyewitness accounts, while viewing
the purposes of their accounts quite differently (Dickens, 2016:130-131), provide an
interesting point of information in common. John of Ephesus (vi.23) in his account
of the embassy of Zemarkhos (569-570) reports that in addition to the “king”
(Qağan) with whom Zemarkhos had contact there were “eight other great kings
beyond him” ( John of Ephesus, 1960: 425; Dickens, 2016: 119). Menander, in his
account of the second Byzantine embassy in 576 to the Türks, led this time by
Valentinos, an embassy that found a hostile reception from one of the Türks
“leaders” (a Qağan or lesser Qağan), ToûpÇavöoç (*Türk-sad? This
title/anthroponym remains a matter of contention),82 who ruled one of the eight
territories (ev OKTW Y«p J-toipaç) into which the Türks had divided their lands.
The “senior ruler” was ’ApaiXaç (Menander, 1985:172/173; see above).83 We are
not otherwise informed of an eight-fold division of the Türk realm (in whole, or just
the western part?). It might be further noted in this regard that the Peceneg tribal
union of the 10th century, according to Constantine Porphy- rogenitus (scr. 948-
942) was also divided into “eight provinces” (eiç QsâTa OKTW SiaipeÎTai,
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 1967:166/167). The matter merits further
exploration - at another time.
Turning to lands more directly adjacent to the Türk core territory, we must look
at the data provided by the Saka documents written in Khotan (hvatana, hvatana,
hvatana-kslra, hvam-kslra “the country of Khotan,” Bailey, 1979: vii, 501-502;
Bailey, 1982:2-3, also called Udun in Turkic, see al-Kasgari, 1982-1985, L114). Only
fragments of Saka spoken in nearby areas, e.g. the Kanjak Saka of the Kasgar
region, Tumsuq, Murtuq, Kroraina and an Indo-Saka (Gercenberg, 1981: 234,
Emmerick, 2009: 377-379) have survived in a few texts and in some substratal
words found in the Turkicized population of the region (e.g. Kanjaki, Tremblay,
2007: 63-76).84 The bulk of the literature in Khotan Saka, believed to date from
the 7th-10th centuries,85 with a few possibly a century or two earlier (Emmerick,
2009: 378), consists of translations of Buddhist texts, as well as Indic epics,
medical works and didactic tales from Sanskrit and Prakrit. A few of the
manuscripts contain some information on the history and sociopolitical
organization of Khotan and in the process mention the ethnonyms of peoples who
raided or warred with that realm. Most of the documents are written in forms of
the “Central Asian Brahmi” script and present more than a few problems
(Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja, 1992: 32-35).86 In Khotan Saka, Türk is writ-

26 golden
83 Michael Syrus (d. 1199) in his Chronicle (x.10), which drew extensively on earlier works, simply notes
that there were “9 kings of the Turqaye” at that time (cited in Dickens, 2016: 127-128).
84 Kasgari, 1982-1985,1:357, calls the Kancak “a tribe of the Turks,” but notes elsewhere (1:84)
that “Kashghar has villages in which Kancaki is spoken, but in the main city [they speak] Khaqani
Turkic.” This information is placed in a section that outlines those parts of the Turkic (more
properly Turkic-ruled) world in which there were bilingual cities, e.g. Bal- asagun, Isbijab, Tiraz
(Talas) in which Sogdian and Turkic were spoken and in Argu, a region extending from Isbijab to
Balasagun, in which the population was, apparently, in the last stages of Turkicization. The
implication is that the Kancak villages around Kas- gar were still speaking Saka or at least were
bilingual. Bailey (1970: 67) notes Tibetan Gah jag (Ganjag) and kancake in a fragment from
Murtuq, both probably denoting Kanjak/ Kancak.
85 Bailey (1982: 2) dates “local Khotan texts” from 300-1000.
86 The documents are dated from the 7th to the 10th century. In the early 11th century, Khotan
was conquered by Turkic Muslims (Gertsenberg, 1981: 235, terms them “Uygur Muslims,” which is
inaccurate). The Uygurs, who were not yet Muslims, were the mortal enemies of
ten ttürka (recorded only once), or more often ttrüka (according to Bailey, 1982:
81, 84-85, genitive pl. ttrükam cf. also ttrüki, ttürki, Bailey, 1939:86; Bailey, 1979:
132,433 [ttrükä bayarkâvüm: Türk Bayarqu]), ttrukä in Rona-Tas, 1999:279-280,
which he reads as truka or trükü > truk/trük and considers the “Khotanese data ...
older and more original”. Turkic, he concluded, “fitted the foreign word truku or
trükü into its own system as türkü.” These forms, he argues, are corroborated by
Tibetan: dru-gu ^-, drug (Bailey, 1982: 85 considered Tibet. -u in dru-gu a suffix,
hence he prefers the form drug; Bailey, 1985: 101; Venturi, 2008: 9, 12; Beckwith,
2005:14, 2010: 5; Erkoç, 2019: 133, 135. Uray, 1979: 281 mentions Dru-gu-yul
“Land of the Turks” noted in the latter part of the 7th century in the Tibetan Royal
annals) and by the fact that Khotanese Saka and Tibetan were perfectly capable of
transcribing Türk, if that were the original form, hence the initial consonant cluster
tr- as reflected in the Khotanese Saka and Tibetan forms must be the original.
Rona-Tas further suggests that the word that became türk in a Turkic linguistic
milieu itself may reflect a Khotan Saka word *truka, which subsequently “was
identified” with Turkic türk “strong, strength, ripe.” * Truka, it is proposed, may
stem from Khotan Saka tturakä “cover,”87 which harkens back to the ethnogonic
tale reported in Chinese accounts that the ^^ Tüjue (Türküt) took their name after
the “helmet-shaped” appearance of the Altay Mountains ^[^ (Jinshan “Gold[en]
Mountain,” Altun Yls in Türk, see Aydın, 2016: 33-34; Altay <*altan “gold”
[Golden, 1992:118] or < *paltun [Yıldız, 2017: 187-201]) where they had served the
Rouran/Avars as blacksmiths (Rona-Tas and Berta, 2011, ii: 940-941; see
discussion in Golden, 2018: 294, 297-299). Thus, trükü > türkü was conflated with
Turk. türk “flourishing, in full strength,” a suitable ethnonym (Rona-Tas, 1999:
281).
Another perspective is offered by Beckwith (2005: 13-18, Beckwith, 2006/
2007: 5-12, Beckwith, 2010: 5-10), who argues that ^^ Tüjue mc *turkwar ~
*durkwar renders *türk-wac/*türk-ßac /*türk-wac /*türk-wat/*türk-ßatJ88
“rulers

the Muslim Qaraxanids, who under Yusuf Qadir Xan of Kasgar, took the city-state ca. 1006
(Bartol’d, 1963—I977a, i: 335, 342—347; Pritsak, 1951: 295 and n. 3; Bailey, 1982: 3; Milward,
2007: 55), becoming a semi-legendary figure (Satuq Buğra Destanı, 2017: 107-198). The
complexities of the Brahmî script system for rendering Turkic are discussed in Rona-Tas, 1991: 63-
91; Hitch, 2016. Khotan Saka Brahmî tt represents an “unvoiced t” and is “consistently written <tt)”
(Rona-Tas, 1991: 87, 90; Gertsenberg, 1981: 243, 249). Hitch, 2015: 663-687 states (pp. 663, 664,
682) that tt= tand that tt was initially used to write “voiceless double /tt/ and was later adapted to
writing voiceless single /t/.”
87 Bailey, 1979:132 (tturaka), 511 (tturaka) “covering.”
88 Beckwith, 2005:17; Beckwith, 2006-2007: 8-10: *Sac < Old Indic vati~pati “ruler;” Gand- harî Prakrit
wati (vati < pati). Beckwith (2006-2007: 9) revises the name/title of the Türk ruler, ToüpâvSoç
(Menander, 1985:176/177) to ToupKodS *Türkwath. of the Türk”/“Türk Rulers”/“The
Royal Türk(s).” The ethnonym of the Türks, he argues, followed a similar
pattern to that seen in the name of the ®^ Tuoba (see above). These and
other explanations remain matters of contention.
Further forms are found in Arabic, Arabo-Pers. texts (Frenkel, 2015: 1-36; tmen,
11: 483-495): d/, dlj-! Turk, pl. Atrak, Pers. dlTy pl. Turkan; Indic: turuşka, Prakrit
turukha (Marquart, 1901:239, n. 6,240,254, Markwart, 1938:112113). In a Bactrian
document from Gozgan dated to 693, we find: ffnpo TopKo “Ser the Turk.” In the
Tang-i Safedak inscription (714), Türk appears as SopKO (Sims- Williams, 2011:
20).89
An important clue is to be found in the recently deciphered Mongolic (Rouran?
90) text in the Khüis Tolgoi inscription 1:5,10 written in Brahmi script, sometime
during or just after the reign of Niri Qağan (r. 595-604, see de La Vaissiere, 2018:
316), which notes, mri qayan türüg qayan, niri qayan türüg qaya[n] (Vovin,
2019:173, 182, 188,191,192 “Niri qayan, qayan of Türks”).9i The reading, which
may well point to Türük,92 is crucial to our reading of the earliest Türk form of
their self-designation. Given the türüg, türüg of the Khüis Tolgoi inscription, an
original *Türüküt with a syncope producing ** Türüküt/ Türügüt > Türküt is not
implausible. On the basis of the Sogdian forms in the Bugut and the Mongolic
(Rouran) forms in the Khüis Tolgoi inscriptions, I think that we can conclude that
Türük was the original Türk self-designation and Türküt reflected in the Chinese
sources derives from either an archaic plural in -( A)t or a Rouran plural (*türügüt
> türgüt/türküt). The influence of Sogdian twrkyt/twrkt, i.e. turkit in shaping the
Chinese form cannot be excluded.
89 See Sims-Williams, 2003: 225-242 and Sims-Williams, 2011:15-26 for an overview of the Bactrian
documents and their relevance for Turkic Studies. On the problems of the dating of these
documents, see Sims-Williams and Weber et al. 2018.
90 See Vovin, 2004: 118-132 and Vovin, 2011: 27-36 for his earlier thoughts regarding the language of the
Rouran.
91 In Classical Mongol, there is türüg and türke, Mod. Mongol. turok (Russ. Typok) “Turk” (Lessing, 1995:
885, 856) and türeg [myp^^] Luvsandendev and Cedendamba, 2001-2002, iii: 274.
92 Thus, the Türk Qağan bearing the name Tatpar Qagan (r. 572-581): Sogd. (Bugut, i.3 22,3—

28 golden
4,5,6,7,9,11) my" t’tp’rx’y’n (Maga Tatpar Qağan), my’tp’r: Maya Tatpar, ßyy my’ t’t(p) [‘r] etc.
(Moriyasu and Ochir, 1999: 123; Ölmez, 2012: 67; Rybatzki, 2000: 215; Yoshida, 2019: 99105, cf.
also Lurje, 2010: 238 [664] for these and other forms, including Chin. MÄffiM Mohetäbö emc:
mak / md'ya" fiapat Qağan and Täbö ^^ emc fiapat imc Üapuat Pulleyblank, 1991: 299 [9:3], 40
[167:5] Qağan, also f£^ Tuobö emc: tha pat imc: tha puat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 313 [9:5], 40
[167:5]), Sffi Daba emc: that bait/bs:t imc: Üat pfiia:t (Pulleyblank: 299 [162:9, dâ/ta], 27 [64:5]),
Kasai, 2014:130), is recorded as Tadparmuyan qayan in the Mongolic (Rouran?) section of the
Bugut inscription written in Brähmi (B- Brähmi.11; 2,9,11) Hence, a t > d and k > g might be
indicated.
The question of whether the original Türks were initially Turkic-speaking
remains unsettled. On the one hand, they appear to have come to the Gansu-
Eastern Turkistan/Xinjiang region from the Xiongnu93 union in which we find
Turkic-speakers (e.g. the Dingling). On the other hand, the name of their ruling
clan and tribe (Ashina) and the names of their early rulers are clearly not Turkic
(Golden, 1992:121; Rybatzki, 2000:206-220; Zuev, 2002: 7). Many of the names
(more often titles and honorifics) recorded in the Chinese sources for the period of
the First Türk Qağanate eventually clearly evince Turkic terminology and there are
indications of works being translated into Turkic for Tatpar several decades after
the establishment of the Qağanate. By the era of the Second Qağanate, when we
have the Türks writing about themselves in Turkic (the Orxon inscriptions), they
are writing in a developed Turkic literary koine.
Abbreviations
bq Bilge Qağan Inscription (735, Kemp, 2004: 44)

emc Early Middle Chinese
eot East Old Turkic
kc Küli/Köli Cor94 Inscription (720-725, Kemp, 2004:24,722-723, Ölmez, 2012:198,
after 732? Aydın, 2018: 173)
kt Köl (Kül)95 Tegin Inscription (732. Kemp, 2004: 45)
93 The language of the Xiongnu core grouping remains debated, see Pulleyblank, 2000: 6265, who
proposed Yeniseic, but included other possibilities; Vovin, (2000: 87-104; Vovin, 2003: 389-394)
inclined toward Yeniseic; Janhunen (1996: 185-189) considered it “dominated by speakers of pre-
Proto-Bulgharic.” Dybo, (2007: 76-82) rendered the Xiongnu couplet preserved in Chinese
characters as an ancient form of Turkic. Kliashtornyi (2010:130) concluded that the languages of
the Xiongnu and Huns are not known with certainty, but based on the sparse data most probably
included “Proto-Turkic tribes” as well as the ancestors of the Mongols, Tungus and Ugrians and
Iranians.
94 In Runiform script: M>ttYtR kü/ölico/ur/w/kWllcWR (Aydın, 2017: 134 [küli cor]; Aydın, 2018:171-172
[noting other readings as Kölİc Cor/Külİc Cor]; Berta, 2004: 5,11 [kwli cwr]). The name is
transcribed in Chinese as: ®^^ qulüchuo (Aydın, 2017:129), emc khutlwit tehwiat ımc khyt lyt
tşhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 260 [44:5], 205 [60:6], 63 [30:8]), ®ÎJI® qullchuo, emc khut lih
tehwiat imc khy li' tşhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 260 [44:5], 188 [18:5], 63 [30:8]), M^ que/quechuo
emc khuat tehwiat ımc khyat tşhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 263 [169:10], 63 [30:8]) and M^^
quelüchuo emc khuatlwittGhwiat ımc khyat lyt tşhyat (Pulleyblank, 1991: 263 [169:10], 205

[60:6], 63 [30:8]), all noted by Kasai, 2014: 126, who opts for the reading as Kül(i) Cor, as does
Aydın, 2018:171.
95 Yt!/ ^$th YtR: kö/ül, kö/ül tign (kT-E26, 27) Berta, 2004:110: kWltIgn, WkWltIgn; Aydın, 2017: 59, 60:
köl tegin Chin. MW® que teqin: emc: khuat ımc: khyat (Pulleyblank: 263 [169:10]). Kasai, 2014:
126 readsMque as representing köl, see discussion in Sertkaya, 1995a: ih Late Han ^ Chinese
(from 1st century ce, Schuessler, 2009:29-34)
lmc Late Middle Chinese
MC Middle Chinese (the language of -g^ Chang’an ca. 6ooce)96
oc Old Chinese (ca. i25o-22ibce, i.e. pre-Qin ^ [22i-2o6bce])
odb The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium
T Tonyuquq Inscription (726, Kemp, 2004: 47)97 wot West Old Turkic
Bibliography
Aalto, Pentti and Tuomo Pekkanen. 1975-1980. Latin Sources on North-Eastern Eurasia,
Asiatische Forschungen, 44, 57 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz), 2 vols.
Abaev, Vasilii I. Istonko-etmologicheskii slovar’ osetinskogo iazyka (Moscow-Leningrad:
Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk sssr, 1958-1995), 4 vols. and Index.
129-133; Aydın, 2017: 43-44 and below. Kubatin, 2017:110 and n. 1, cites Sogd. kwl for kül or köl.
He views kül (< ku “rumour; fame, reputation” > kulüg “famous” Clauson, 1972: 686,715 [kül
“title,” Clauson preferred kül to köl], 717-718) as an epithet used in titles, e.g. kül cor, kül erkin, kül
tegin.
96 In Karlgren, 1996, m c is termed “Ancient Chinese.” The datingofmc covers the period from
the Late Han ^ (Han dynasty: 2o6bce-22oce) to the Song ^ (Bei Song Jt^ Northern Song 960-
1127). emc refers to the period from the end of the Han to ca. 601. imc is the period of the Tang ^
(618-907), see discussion in Wilkinson, 2018:23-24; Pul. 1991:1-3; Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 9-32
(with discussion of phonetics etc.). Pan and Zhang (2015: 8090): date mc “from c. 5th century c e
to 12th century c e,” with discussion of the sources and phonology. There were, of course, regional
differences in pronunciation (dialects), some of which can be refined in the reconstructions. All
reconstructions are “sets of hypotheses ... consistent with observed data” but also predictive “about
data not yet seen.” In mc (in Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 5, 7), the forms noted are “ not phonetic
reconstructions but conventional representations about pronunciation given in Middle Chinese
written sources.” See also Schuessler, 2009: 5-10. Reconstructions vary, often only slightly, from
scholar to scholar. Nonetheless, when combined with the data from languages using alphabetic
systems (with their own sets of problems) they help us to more fully round out the pronunciation of
the terms. The process is ongoing. The sources and notation systems for oc and mc are discussed in
Baxter and Sagart, 2014: 9-41. The forms recorded in Türk Runiform sources reflect the Turkic
version of what appears to be a largely borrowed vocabulary inherited from earlier polities, not
always rendered correctly or transformed in earlier transcriptions from the Runiform sources (cf.
[h]elitbar ~ eltabar, Erdal, 2016:175-177). Hence, it is useful in this study to present the widest
range of readings.
97 The monument consists of two stones written, it has been argued, by two different hands.
Opinions on the dating are far from unanimous, with arguments having been made for its creation
in 716, or after the death of Köl Tegin (732) but before the death of Bilge Qağan (734, Sertkaya,
1995b: 113-128, see the most recent discussion in Aydın, 2019: 86-90).

30 golden
Abu’l-Ğazı. 1970: Histoire des Mongols et des Tatars par Aboul-Ghazi Béhâdour Khân, ed.
trans. Petr. I. Desmaisons (St. Petersbourg, 1871-1874, reprint: Amsterdam: St. Leonards
Ad Orientem Ltd.-Philo Press), 2 vols. in 1.
AbU’l-Ğazl. 1996: Ebulgazi Bahadır Han, Şecere-i Terâkime (Türkmenlerin Soykütüğü), ed.
Zuhal Kargı Ölmez (Ankara: Simurg).
Adams, Douglas Q. 1988. Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology. American
Oriental Series, 71 (New Haven, CT.: American Oriental Society).
Adams, Douglas Q. 2013. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and Greatly enlarged. Leiden
Studies in Indo-European, 10 (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 2 vols.
Agathias. 1967: Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinqe, ed. Rudolf Keydell, Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, ii (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter)
Agathias. 1975. The Histories, trans. Joseph D. Frendo, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzan-
tinae, ii A (Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter)
Ananias of Sirak. 1992: The Geography of Ananias of Sirak (Asxarhac’oyc’). The Long and
the Short Recensions, trans. commentary Robert H. Hewsen. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas
des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) Nr. 77 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig
Reichert).
Atwood, Christopher P. 2012. “Some Early Inner Asian Terms Related to the Imperial Family
and the Comitatus” Central Asiatic Journal 56: 49-86
Aydın, Erhan. 2015. Yenisey Yazıtları (Konya: Kömen)
Aydın, Erhan. 2016. Eski Türk Yer Adları (Ankara: Bilge Kültür Sanat)
Aydın, Erhan. 2017. Orhon Yazıtları. Köl Tegin, Bilge Kağan, Tonyukuk, Ongi, Küli Çor
(Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat).
Aydın, Erhan. 2018. Taşa Kazınan Tarih. Türklerin İlk Yazılı Belgeleri (Istanbul: Kronik)
Aydın, Erhan. 2018a. Uygur Yazıtları (Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat).
Aydın, Erhan. 2019. Türklerin Bilge Atası Tonyukuk (Istanbul: Kronik)
Babayar, Gaybullah. 2014. “Batı Köktürk ve Orta Asya Bozkır Hanlıklarının Sikkelerindeki
Damgalar” Marmara Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, c.i, s. i (Bahar): 9-29.
Babayarov, Gaybullah. 2017. “Soğdça Yazılı Türk Kağan Ünvanlı Batı Köktürk Sikkeleri
Üzerine” Kerkük Çok Irak Değil. Prof. Dr. Eşref Buharalı’ya Armağan. Türk Tarihine
Dair Yazılar, ii, ed. Alpaslan Demir, Tuba Kalkan, Eralp Erdoğan (Ankara): 615-635
Bailey, Harold W. 1939. “Turks in Khotanese Texts” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
Great Britain and Ireland, No. 1: 85-91.
Bailey, Harold W. 1970. “Saka Studies: The Ancient Kingdom of Khotan” Iran 8: 65-72.
Bailey, Harold W. 1982. The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan (Delmar, NY:
Caravan Books).
Bailey, Harold W. 1985. Indo-Scythian Studies, being Khotanese Texts, vii (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press)
Bal'amî. 2012: Tabarî, La Chronique. Histoire des prophètes et des rois, trans. H. Zotenberg
(Paris, 1867-1874, reprint: Sindbad, 1984, reprint: Actes Sud). ii
Bartol’d, Vasilii V 1963-1977. Sochinenija (Moscow: Izdatel’sto Vostocnoj Literatury), 9 vols.

Bartol’d, Vasilii V 1963—I977a. Turkestan v épokhu mongol’skogo nashestviia in his Soci-
neniia i.
Bartol’d, Vasilii V. 1963-1977b. Ocherk istorii turkmenskogo naroda in his Sochineniia, ii/1:
545-623.
Bartol’d, Vasilii V. 1963-1977c. Dvenadtsat’ lektsii po istorii turetskikh narodov Srednei Azii
in his Sochineniia, v: 17-192.
Bartusis, Mark C. 1992. The Late Byzantine Army. Arms and Society, 1204-1453 (Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
Baxter, William H. and Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese. A New Reconstruction (Oxford-
New York: Oxford University Press).
Bazin, Louis. 1953. “Notes sur les mots ‘Oğuz’ et ‘Türk’” Oriens 6/2:315-322.
Beckwith, Christopher I. 1987. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Strug-
gle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle
Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Beckwith, Christopher I. 2005. “The Chinese Names of the Tibetans, Tabgatch, and Türks”
Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14: 5-20.
Beckwith, Christopher I. 2006/2007. “The Frankish Name of the King of the Turks”
Beckwith, Christopher I. 2004. Koguryo. The Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives
(Leiden-Boston, second edition 2007).
Beckwith, Christopher I. 2009. Empires of the Silk Road. A History of Central Eurasia from
the Bronze Age to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Beckwith, Christopher I. 2010. “A Note on the Heavenly Kings of Ancient and Medieval
Eurasia” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 17: 5-10.
Berta, Ârpad. 2004. Szavaimatjol halljàtok... A türkés ujgur rovàsiràsos emlékek kritikai
kiadàsa (Szeged: JATEPress).
Bonner, Michael Richard Jackson. 2011. Three Neglected Sources of Sasanian History in the
Reign of Khusraw Anushirwan, Studia Iranica. Cahier 46. (Paris: Association pour l’
Avancement des Études Iraniennes).
Browning, Robert. 1983. Medieval and Modern Greek, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Carling, Gerd in collaboration with Georges-Jean Pinault and Werner Winter. 2009. A
Dictionary and Thesaurus of Tocharian A. Vol. 1: Letters a-j. Manuscript (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag).
Cereti, Carlo G. 1995. The Zand l Wahman Yasn. A Zoroastrian Apocalypse (Romea: Isti-
tuto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente).
Cereti, Carlo G. 2012. “Karnâmag-lArdaslr IPabagm”Encyclopaedia Iranica xv, Fasc. 6:
585-588, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/karnamag-i-ardasir.
Chavannes, Edouard. 1941/1969. Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) Occidenteaux suivi de
Notes Additionnelles (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1941, reprint: Taipei: Ch’eng Wen
Publishing, 1969)

32 golden
Clauson, Gerard. 1962/2002. Studies in Turkish and Mongolian Linguistics (Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1962, 2nd ed. London: Routledge-Curzon).
Clauson, Sir Gerard. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Coblin, W. South. 1994. A Compendium of Phonetics in Northwest Chinese. Journal of
Chinese Linguistics, Monograph Series, 7 (Berkeley).
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 1967. De Administrando Imperio, ed, J. Moravcsik, trans.
R. Jenkins (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks)
Chunakova, O.M. (ed., trans.). 1987. Kniga deianii Ardashira syna Papaka. Pamiatniki
pis’mennosti Vostoka lxxviii (Moscow: Nauka).
Czegledy, Karoly. 1958. “Bahram Cobm and the Persian Apocalyptic Literature” Acta Ori-
entalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae viii/1:21-43.
Czegledy, Karoly, 1971. “Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor on the Nomads” in Studia Turcica, ed.
Louis Ligeti (Budapest): 133-148.
Czegledy, “Gardizi on the History of Central Asia (745—78oa.d.)”Acta OrientaliaAcade- miae
Scientiarum Hungaricae xxvii/3: 257-267.
Czegledy, Karoly. 1983. “From East to West: The Age of Nomadic Migrations in Eurasia”
Movses Dasxuranci. 1961. The History of the Caucasian Albanians, trans. C.J.F. Dowsett.
London Oriental Series, 8 (London: Oxford University Press).
Movses Dasxuranci [Kaiankatuatci]. 1983. Patmut’iwn Atuanic asxarhi, ed. V Arak’elyan
(Yerevan).
Dickens, Mark. 2008. Turkaye: TurkicPeoples in Syriac Literature Prior to the Seljuks. PhD
Dissertation, Cambridge University.
Dickens, Mark. 2016. “John of Ephesus on the Embassy of Zemarchus to the Turks” in Istvan
Zimonyi and Osman Karatay (eds.), Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages. Studies in
Honour of Peter B. Golden. Turcologica Bd. 104 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag): 103-
131.
Di Cosmo. Nicola and Michael Maas (eds.). 2018. Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late
Antiquity. Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250-750 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Dobrovits, Mihaly. 2004. “A nyugati turkok elso uralkodojarol” Antik Tanulmdnyok xlviii:
111-114.
Dobrovits, Mihaly. 2008. “Silziboulos” Archivum Ottomanicum 25: 67-78.
Dobrovits, Mihaly. 2011. “The Altaic World Through Byzantine Eyes: Some Remarks on the
Historical Circumstances of Zemarchus’ Journey to the Turks (ad 569-570)”Acta
Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 65/4: 373-409.
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1963-1975. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen
(Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag), Bd. i-iv (4 vols.) = tmen
Duczko, Wladyslaw. 2004 Viking Rus. Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern
Europe (Leiden-Boston: Brill).

Duri, A.A. 1983. The Rise of Historical Writing Among the Arabs, ed. trans. L.I. Conrad
(Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Nina Duthie, 2019. “The Nature of the Hu: Wuhuan and Xianbei Ethnography in the San guo
zhi and Hou Han Shu” Early Medieval China, 25: 23-41.
Edgar, Adrienne Lynn. 2004. Tribal Nation. The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan (Princeton:
Prince University Press).
Eisenberg, Andrew. 2018: “Collapse of a Eurasian Hybrid. The Case of the Northern Wei” in:
Di Cosmo and Maas (eds.), 2018: 369-385
Emmerick, Ronald E. 2009. “Khotanese and Tumshuqese” in Windfuhr (ed.) 2009: 377415
Erdal, Marcel, 1988. “The Turkic Nagy-Szent-Miklos inscription in Greek Letters” Acta
Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42: 221-234.
Erdal, Marcel. 1991. Old Turkic Word Formation. A Functionary Approach to the Lexicon
(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz), 2 vols.
Erdal, Marcel. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic (Leiden-Boston: Brill).
Erdal, Marcel. 2015. “Did the Old Turkic Writing System have Syllabic Characters?” in: Irina
Nevskaya and Marcel Erdal (eds.), 2015. Interpreting the Turkic Runiform Sources and
the Position of the Altai Corpus. Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der
Türkvölker, Bd. 21 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag): 42-45.
Erdal, Marcel. 2019. “The Turkic-Mongolic Lexical Relationship in View of the LeipzigJakarta
List” International Journal f Eurasian Linguistics 1: 78-97.
Erkoç, Hayrettin İhsan. 2017. “Türk Mitlerindeki Motifler (vi-viii Yüzyıllar)” Journal of Old
Turkic Studies 1/1: 36-75.
Erkoç, Hayrettin İhsan, 2018. “Göktürk Boylarının Tespit Edilmesi Çin ve Tibet Kay-
naklarının Önemi” Genel Türk Tarihi Kaynakları. Ordu Çalıştayı Bildirileri, ed. Ali Erdal
Gülderen, Mehmet Alpargu et al. 2-18. (Ordu: Ordu Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür ve
Sosyal İşler Dairesi Başkanlığı Kültür YayınlarI 29): 77-160.
Evagrius. 1898.: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, ed. J. Bidez and L.
Parmentier (London: Methuen & Co.)
Evagrius. 2000.: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, trans. Michael Whitby,
Translated Texts for Historians 33 (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press).
Felföldi, Szabolcs. 2005. “Khronologiia padeniia imperii eftalitov” Biulleten’ (Newslet- ter).12
Hungaro-Russica ii. Istoriia i kul’tura Evraziiskoi stepi 2-j Sbornik statei Rossi- iskikh i
vengerskikh vostokovedov (Moscow: iv ran): 98-132.
Ferguson, R. Brian 1999. “A Paradigm for the study of War and Society” in War and Society
in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, ed. K. Raaflaub and N. Rosenstein, Center for
Hellenic Studies, Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press): 389 -
437.
Ferguson, R. Brian and Neil L. Whitehead. 1992. “The Violent Edge of Empire” in Fergu son,
R. Brian and Neil L. Whitehead (eds.). 1992, War in the Tribal Zone. Expanding States
and Indigenous Warfare (Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press): 1-
30

34 golden
fhg: Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum iv, ed. C. Müller (Paris, 1851)
Foltz, Richard. 2010. Religions of the Silk Road, 2nd ed. (New York-Houndsmills, Bas-
ingstoke, UK).
Frenkel, Yehoshua. 2015. The Turkic Peoples in Medieval Arabic Writings (London-New
York: Routledge).
Fomin, V.V. 2005. Variagi i variazhskaia Rus’. K itogam diskussii po variazhskomu voprosu
(Moscow: Russkaia Panorama).
Frye, Richard N. 1963. The Heritage of Persia (Cleveland-New York: The World Publishing
Company).
Gat, Azar, with Alexander Yakobson. 2103. Nations. The Long History and Deep Roots of
Political Ethnicity and Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Geary, Patrick J. 2002. The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton:
Princeton University Press).
Gertsenberg, L.G. 1981. “Khotanosakskii iazyk” in Rastorgueva, 1981: 233-313
Gharib, Badr al-Zaman. 2004. Sogdian Dictionary. Sogdian-Persian-English (Tehran:
Farhangan Publications, 1996, 2nd printing).
Gillett, Andrew. (ed.), 2002. On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the
Early Middle Ages in Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 4 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols)
Golb, Norman and Omeljan Pritsak. 1982. Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth
century (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Golden, Peter B. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Turcologica,
Bd.9 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz)
Golden, Peter B. 2001. Ethnicity and State Formation in Pre-Cinggisid Turkic Eurasia. The
Central Eurasian Studies Lectures, i. Indiana University (Bloomington, Ind.: Department
of Central Eurasian Studies).
Golden, Peter B. 2008-2009. “Ethnogenesis in the Tribal Zone: The Shaping of the Türks”
Golden, Peter B. 2012. “Oq and Oğur ~ Oğuz” Turkic Languages 16: 155-199.
Golden, Peter B. 2013. “Some Notes on the Avars and Rouran” in Florin Curta and Bogdan-
Petru Maleon (eds.). 2013. The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them. Studies in
honor of Victor Spinei on this 70th birthday (Iaşi: Editura Universität “Alexandru Ioan
Cuza”): 43-66
Golden, Peter B. 2015. “The Turkic World in Mahmûd al-Kâshgharî” in J. Bemmann and M.
Schmauder (eds.), The Complexity of Interaction along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in the
first Millennium ce. Empires, Cities, Nomads and Farmers in Bonn Contributions to
Asian Archaeology 7 (Bonn: Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Rheinische
Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn): 503-555
Golden, Peter B. 2015a. “Étimologiia étnonima Sabir” Chuvashkii gumanitarnyi vestnik,
N°io: 15—26.
Golden, Peter B. 2016. “The Great King of the Türks” Turkic Languages 20/1: 26-59.
Golden, Peter B. 2018. “The Ethnogonic Tales of the Türks” The Medieval History Journal

21/2: 291-327.
Gordon, Matthew S. 2001. The Breaking of a Thousand Swords. A History of the Turkish
Military of Samarra (a.h. 200-275/815-899) (Albany: State University of New York
Press).
Graff, David A. 2002. Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900 (London-New York: Routledge).
Greatrex, Geoffrey and Samuel N.C. Lieu (eds. and compilers). 2002. The Roman Eastern
Frontier and the Persian Wars. Part ii a d 363-630. A narrative sourcebook (LondonNew
York: Routledge).
Greenwood, Tim. 2018. “Ananias of Shirak (Anania Sirakac’i)” Encyclopædia Iranica, online
edition: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ananias-shirak
Grenet, Frantz (ed. trans.), 2003. La geste d’Ardashirfils de Pâbag. Kärnämag lArdaxser
IPäbagän (Die: Éditions A Die).
M. Grignaschi. 1984. “La chute de l’ empire Hephthalite dans les sources byzantines et perses
et le problème des Avar” in: J. Harmatta (ed.), 1984. From Hecataeus to al-Huwärizml.
Bactrian, Pahlavi, Sogdian, Persian, Sanskrit, Syriac, Arabic, Chinese, Greek and Latin
Sources for the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia, (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado): 219-
248.
Hämeen-Anttila, Jaako. 2018. Khwadäynämag. The Middle Persian Book of Kings (Leiden-
Boston: Brill).
Hansen, Olaf. 1930. “Zur soghdischen Inschrift auf dem dreisprachigen Denkmal von
Karabalgasun” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 34/3:1-40.
Harmatta, Janos. 1962. “Iranoturcica” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
10/1-3: 131-150.
Harmatta, Janos. 1972. “Irano-Turcica” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungar-
icae 25: 263-272.
Harmatta, Janos (ed.). 1979. Prolegomena to the Sources on the History ofPre-Islamic Cen-
tral Asia (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado)
Harmatta, Janos. 1999. “A türkök eredetmondaja” Magyar Nyelv 95: 385-397.
Haussig, H.W. 1979. “Byzantinische Quellen über Mittelasien in ihrer historischen Aussage”
in Harmatta (ed.), 1979: 41-60.
Herodotos. 1982.: A.I. Dovatur, D.P. Kallistov, I.A. Shishova, Narody nashei strany v
“istorii” Gerodota (Moscow, Nauka)
Hitch, Douglas, 2015. “tt in Old Khotanese” Journal of the American Oriental Society135/4:
663-687
Hitch, Douglas A. 2016. The Old Khotanese Metanalysis. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard
University.
Holcombe, Charles. 2013. “The Xianbei in Chinese History” Early Medieval China 19: 138.
Howard-Johnston, James. 1995. “The Two Great Powers in Late Antiquity: A Comparison” in
Avril Cameron (ed.). 1995. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, iii (Princeton:
Darwin Press): 157-226.
Howard-Johnston, James. 2010. “Sebeos” Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition: http://

36 golden
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sebeos (accessed on 20 September 2016).
Ibn al-Balkhî, 1921. Fârs-nâma, ed. Le Strange, Guy and R.A. Nicholson (London: E.J.W.
Gibb Memorial Series and Luzac).
Ibn al-Faqïh. 1996. Kitab al-Buldan, ed. Y. al-Hadi (Beirut: ‘Älam al-Kutub)
IbnXurradadbih (Xurdadbih). 1889. Kitâb Masâlikwa’l-Mamâlik, ed. M.J. De Goeje (Leiden:
Brill).
Janhunen, Juha. 1996. Manchuria. An Ethnic History Mémoires de la Société Finno-
Ougrienne, 22 (Helsinki: The Finno-Ugrian Society).
ludin, Veniamin P. 1992. “Ordy: belaia, siniaia, seraia, zolotaia ...” in Utemish-khadzhi,
Chingiz-name, ed. trans. Veniamin P. Iudin, commentary by Meruert Kh. Abuseitova
(Almaty: Gılım): 14-56.
Jiu Tangshu, 2005: Çin Kaynaklarında Türkler. Eski T’ang Tarihi (Chiu T’ang-shu), ed.
Turk. trans. İsenbike Togan, Gülnar Kara, Cahide Baysal (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu).
John of Ephesus. 1860. The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Eph-
esus, trans. Robert Payne Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Kaegi, Walter E. 2003. Heraclius. Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Kafesoğlu, İbrahim. 2014. Umumî Türk Tarihi Hakkında Tespitler, Görüşler, Mülâhazalar.
(İstanbul: Ötüken).
Kaldellis, Anthony. 2013. Ethnography After Antiquity. Foreign Lands and Peoples in
Byzantine Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1957/1996. Grammata Serica Recensa. The Museum of Far Eastern
Antiquities, Stockholm, Bulletin 29 (Stockholm, 1957, reprint: smc Publishing, Taipei)
Kasai, Yukiyo. 2014. “The Chinese Phonetic Transcriptions of Old Turkish Words in the
Chinese Sources from 6th-9th Century: Focused on the Original Word Transcribed as
Tujue ^J^” Studies on the Inner Asian Languages xxix: 57-135
K’art’lis Cxovreba, 1955-1973, ed. Simon Qauxc’isvili (T’bilisi: Saxelgami, Sabcot’a
sak’art’velo). 4 vols.
K’art’lis C’xovreba, 2008. ed. Roin Metreveli (T’bilisi: Meridiani Artanuji)
Käsgan. 1982-1985.: Mahmud al-Käsyari, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Diwan
Luyatat-Turk), ed. trans. Robert Dankoff in collaboration withJames Kelly in Sources of
Oriental Languages and Literatures, 7, (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press), 3
vols.
Kemp, Bela. 2004. “Old-Turkic runiform inscriptions in Mongolia: An overview” Turkic
Languages 8/1: 41-52.
Khaleghi-Motlagh, Dj. 1989. “Amirak Bal'ami,” Encyclopedia Iranica, i, Fasc. 9 (1989): 971-
972, online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/amirak-balami (accessed on 30
December 2012).
Khazanov, Anatoly M. 1984. Nomads and the Outside World, trans. J. Crookenden (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press).
Kim, Ronald. 2003. “On the Historical Phonology of Ossetic: The Origin of the Oblique Case

Suffix” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123/1: 43-72.
Klein, Lev S. 2009. Spor o variagakh. Istoriia protivostoianiia i argumenty storon (St.
Petersburg: Evraziia).
Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. 1964 Drevnetiurkskie runicheskie pamiatniki kak istochnik po istorii
Srednei Azii (Moscow: Nauka)
Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. 1992. “Khunny i tiurki” in: Litvinskii, 1992: 116-156.
Klyashtornyi, Sergei G. 1994. “The Royal Clan of the Turks and the Problem of Early Turkic-
Iranian Contacts” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47/3: 445-447.
Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. 2003. Istoriia Tsentral’noi Azii i pamiatniki runicheskogo pis’ma.
Otechestvennye issledovaniia (St. Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet St. Petersburg-
skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta).
Klyashtornyi, Sergei G. 2006. “The Royal Clan of the Turks and the Problem of its Desig-
nation” in his collected articles: Pamiatniki drevnetiurkskojpis’mennosti i etnokul’tur-
naia istoriia Tsentral’noi Azii (St. Petersburg: Nauka): 446-449.
Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. 2010. Runicheskie pamiatniki Uigurskogo kaganata i istoriia evra-
ziiskikh stepei (St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie).
Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. and Dmitrii G. Savinov. 2005. Stepnye imperii drevnei Evrazii (St.
Petersburg: Filologicheskij fakul’tet SPbGU).
Kmosko, Mihaly. 2004. Szir irok a steppe nepeirol (Budapest: Balassi Kiado).
Kononov, Andrei N. 1980. Grammatika iazyka tiurkskikh runicheskikhpamiatnikov (yii-
ixvv.) (Leningrad: Nauka).
Kroll, Paul W. 2015. A Student’s Dictionary of Classical and Medieval Chinese (Leiden: Brill).
Kubatin, Andrei V. Sistema titulov v Tiurkskom kaganate: genesis i preemstvennost’
(Tashkent: Yangi nashr, 2016).
Kubatin, Andrei V. 2017. “Drevnetiurkskie tituly i epitety na sogdoiazychnykh mone- takh
oazisov Srednei Azii i Semirech’ia épokhi rannego srednevekov’ia” Archivum Eurasiae
MediiAevi 23:103-135.
Kyzlasov, Igor’ L. 1994. Runicheskie pis’mennosti evraziiskikh stepei (Moscow: Vostoch- naia
Literatura).
Latham, J.D. 2011. “Ebn al-Moqaffa"’Encyclopaedia Iranica, (1997), viii/i:29—43, online:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ebn-al-moqaffa
de La Vaissière, Étienne. 2010. “Oncles et frères: les qaghans Ashinas et le vocabulaire turc de
la parenté,’ Turcica 42: 267-277.
de La Vaissière, Étienne. 2016. Histoire des marchands sogdiens, third revised edition.
(Paris: Collège de France, Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises).
de La Vaissière, Étienne. 2018. “The Historical Context to the Khüis Tolgoi Inscription’
Journal Asiatique 306/2: 315-319.
Lee, Joo-Yup and Kuang, Shuntu. 2017. “A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical
Sources and y-dna Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples’ Inner
Asia 19: 197-239.
Lessing, Ferdinand D. (ed.). 1995. Mongolian-English Dictionary, 3rd reprint (Bloomington,

38 golden
ind: The Mongolia Society).
Lewicki, Tadeusz. 1956-1988. Zródla arabskie do dziejów Stowianszczyzny (Wrocfaw-
Kraków-Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Ossolineum) 4 vols.
Liu Mau-tsai. 1957. “Kuturelle Beziehungen zwischen den Ost-Türken (= T’u-küe) und China’
Central Asiatic Journal 3/3: 190-205.
Liu Mau-tsai. 1958. Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T’u-küe)
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 2 vols.
Litvinskii, Boris A. (ed.).1992. Vostochnyi Turkestan v drevnosti i v rannem srednevekov’e.
Étnos, iazyki, religii (Moscow: Nauka).
Livshits, Vladimir A. 2008. Sogdiiskaja épigrafika Srednej Azii i Semirech’ia (St. Petersburg:
Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU)
Lung, Rachel. 2008. “Was it Translated: Turkish Diplomatic Correspondence to China in
Medieval Times’ ttr (Traduction, terminologie, redaction) 21/2: 163-190.
Lurje, Pavel B. 2010. Personal Names in Sogdian Texts in Iranisches Personennamenbuch,
ed. R. Schmitt, H. Eichner, B.G. Fragner, V. Sadovski, Band ii, Mitteliranische Person-
nenamen, Faszikel 8, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-
Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 808. Band. Iranische Onomastik, ed. B.G. Fragner,
V. Sadovski, Nr. 8 (Wien).
Luvsandéndév, A. and C. Cédéndamba (eds.). 2001-2002. Bol’shoi akademicheskii mon-
gol’sko-russkii slovar’ (Moscow: Akademiia), 4 vols.
MacKenzie, D.N. 1986. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1971,
reprint with corrections)
Malalas, John. 1831. Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. L. Dinsdorf, Corpus Scriptorum
Aulae Byzantinae (Bonn).
Malalas, John. 1986: The Chronicle of John Malalas. A Translation by Elizabeth Jeffreys,
Michael Jeffreys and Roger Scott et al. Australian Association for Byzantine Studies.
Byzantina Australiensia 4 (Melbourne).
Marquart, Joseph. 1898. “Historische Glossen zu den alttürkischen Inschriften” Wiener
Zeitschriftfür die Kunde des Morgenlandes 12:157-200.
Marquart, Joseph. 1903/1961. Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge (Leipzig, 1903,
reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung).
Marquart, Joseph. 1914/1970. Über das Volkstum der Komanen in W. Bang, J. Marquart,
Osttürkische Dialektstudien, Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wis-
senschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, n.f. xiii/1 (Berlin, 1914, reprint:
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 25-238.
Josef Markwart (Marquart). 1938. Wehrot und Arang. Untersuchungen zur mythischen und
geschichtlichen Landeskunde von Ostiran, ed. Hans Heinrich Schaeder (Leiden: Brill).
Menander. 1985.: The History of Menander the Guardsman, ed. trans. R.C. Blockley (Liv-
erpool: Francis Cairns).
Miller, David H. 1993. “Ethnogenesis and Religious Revitalization beyond the Roman
Frontier: The Case of Frankish Origins”, Journal of World History 4/2: 277-285

Milward, James A. 2007. Eurasian Crossroads. A History of Xinjiang (New York: Columbia
University Press).
Moravcsik, Julius (Gyula). 1958. Byzantinoturcica, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), 2 vols.
Moriyasu, Takao and Ayudai Ochir (eds.). 1999., Provisional Report of Researches on His-
torical Sites and Inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998 (Osaka: The Society of
Central Eurasian Studies).
Neville, Leonora. 2018. Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
Nemeth, Gyula. 1991. A honfoglalo magyarsâg kialakuläsa (Budapest: Magyar Tudo-
manyos Akademia, 1930, second, revised edition, ed. Ärpad Berta, Budapest: Akade- miai
Kiado).
Novosel’tsev, Anatolii P. 1990. Khazarskoe Gosudarstvo i ego rol’ v istorii Vostochnoi
Evropy i Kavkaza (Moscow: Nauka).
odb. 1991: Alexander P. Kazhdan et al. (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New
York-Oxford: Oxford University Press), 3 vols.
Ölmez, Mehmet. 2012, Orhon-Uygur Hanlığı Dönemi Moğolistan’daki Eski Türk Yazıtları.
Metin-Çeviri-Sözlük (Ankara: Bilge Su).
Ölmez, Mehmet. 2018. Uygur Hakanlığı Yazıtları (Ankara: Bilge Su)
Ösawa, Takashi. 2006. “Aspects of the relationship between the ancient Turks and Sog- dians
- Based on a stone statue with Sogdian inscription in Xinjiang” in Eran ud Aneran Studies
presented to Boris Ilich Marshak on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (ed.) Gianroberto
Scarcia, Matteo Compareti, Paola Raffetta: http://www.transoxian
a.org/Eran/Articles/osawa.html, online 2003, revised 2006.
Ösawa, Takashi. 2010. “Revisiting Khöl-Asgat Inscription in Mongolia from the Second
Turkic Qaghanate” Studies in the Inner Asian Languages xxv: 1-73.
Ösawa, Takashi. 2011. “A Hypothesis on the etymology of the old Turkic royal clan name
Asina/Asinas and the transformation process in the early Abbasid period” Chronica.
Annual of the Institute of History. University of Szeged: 145-155.
Oshanin, I.M. (ed.). 1983-1984. Bol’shoi kitaisko-russkii slovar’ (Moscow: Nauka, 4 vols).
Pan, Wuyun and Hongming Zhang. 2015. “Middle Chinese Phonology and Qieyun” in Wang,
S.-Y. William and Chaofen Sun (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics
(Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press): 80-90.
P’awstos Buzand. 1989.: The Epic Histories Attributed to P’awstos Buzand (Buzandaran
Patmut’iwnk’), trans. Nina G. Garsoi'an (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Pelliot, Paul. 1915. “L’ origine de T’ou-kiue, nom chinois des Turcs” T’oung Pao, 2nd series,
16/5: 687-689.
Petrukhin, Vladimir Ja. 2013. Rus’ v ix-x vekakh. Ot prizvaniia variagov do vybora very
(Moscow: forum; Neolit).
Podosinov, A.V. and M.V. Skrzhinskaia (eds., trans.). 2011. Rimskie geograficheskie istoch-
niki: Pomponii Mela i Plinii Starshii. Drevneishie istochniki po istorii Vostochnoi Evropy
(Moscow: Indrik).

40 golden
Pohl, Walter. 2002. “Ethnicity, Theory, and Tradition: A Response” in: Gillet (ed.), 2002:
221-239.
Pohl, Walter. 2013. “Introduction. Strategies of Identification: A Methodological Profile” In
Walter Pohl and Gerde Heydemann (eds.), Strategies of Identification: Ethnicity and
Religion in Early Medieval Europe (Turnhout: Brepols): 1-64.
Pohl, Walter. 2018. The Avars. A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567-822 (Ithaca, NY-
London: Cornell University Press).
Walter Pohl, 2018a. “Ethnicity and Empire in the Western Eurasian Steppes” in Di Cosmo
and Maas, 2018: 189-205.
Pohl, Walter. 2018b. “Narratives of Origin and Migration in Early Medieval Europe: Problems
of Interpretation” The Medieval History Journal 21/2:192-221.
Pourshariati, Parvaneh. 2009. Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire. The Sasanian-
Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran (London-New York: I.B. Taurus)
Pritsak, Omeljan. 1951. “Von den Karluk zu den Karachaniden” Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellshaft 101: 270-300.
Pritsak, Omeljan. 1955. “Qara. Studie zur türkischen Rechtssymbolik” Zeki Velidi Togan’a
Armağan (Istanbul: Maarif Basimevi): 239-263.
Pritsak, Omeljan. 1976. “From the Säbirs to the Hungarians” Hungaro-Turcica. Studies in
honour of Julius Nemeth, ed. Gy. Kaldy-Nagy (Budapest: Lorand Eötvös University): 17-
30
Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor. 2011: The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor. Church and
War in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey Greatrex, trans. Robert R. Phenix and Cornelia B.
Horn with contributions by Sebastian P. Brock and Witold Witakowski. Translated Texts
for Historians, 35 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press).
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1965. “The Chinese Name for the Turks” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 85/2:121-125.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1983. “The Chinese and Their Neighbors in Prehistoric and Early
Historic Times” in: D.N. Keightley (ed.). 1983. The Origins of Chinese Civilization (Berkeley-
Los Angeles: University of California Press): 411-466.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1990. “ ‘The High Carts’: a Turkish Speaking People Before the Türks”
Asia Major, 3/1: 21-26.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of ReconstructedPronunciation in Early Middle Chi-
nese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin (Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press)
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 2000. “The Hsiung-nu,” Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta: T.3,
Philologiae et Historiae Turcicae Fundamenta, i, (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag): 5275.
pvl, 1996: Povest’vremennyx let, ed. D.S. Lixacëv, VP. Adrianova-Peretc, 2nd revised, sup-
plemented edition (St. Petersburg: Nauka)
Rapp Jr. Stephen H. 1997. Imagining History at the Crossroads: Persia, Byzantium, and the
Architects of the Written Georgian Past. Volume i, PhD Dissertation, The University of
Michigan.

Rapp Jr. Stephen H., 2003. Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and
Eurasian Contexts. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 601, Tomus
Subsidia 113 (Louvain: Éditions Peeters)
Rapp Jr. Stephen H. 2014. The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes, Caucasia and the
Iranian Commonwealth in Late Antique Georgian Literature (Farnham, Surrey, UK-
Burlington, VT.: Ashgate).
Rasonyi, Laszlo and Imre Baski, 2007. Onomasticon Turcicum, Indiana University Uralic and
Altaic Studies, v. 172/1-2. (Bloomington, Indiana: Research Institute for Inner Asian
Studies, Indiana University).
Rastorgueva, Vera S. (ed.). 1981. Osnovy iranskogo iazykoznaniia. Sredneiranskie iazyki
(Moscow: Nauka).
Rastorgueva, Vera S. and Dzhoi I. Édel’man. 2000-2015. Étimologicheskii slovar’ iran- skikh
iazykov (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura,), 5 vols. - ongoing. From 2011 under the sole
authorship of Édel’man.
Rayfield, Donald. 1994. The Literature of Georgia. A History (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2017. ReOrienting the Sasanians. East Iran in Late Antiquity
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Rona-Tas, Andras. 1991. An Introduction to Turkology. Studia Uralo-Altaica 33 (Szeged)
Rona-Tas, Andras. 1999. Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, trans.
N. Bodoczky (Budapest: Central European University Press)
Rona-Tas, Andras and Arpad Bertha. 2011. West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungar-
ian. Turcologica, 24 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 2 vols.
Rybatzki, Volker. 2000. “Titles of Türk and Uigur Rulers in the Old Turkic Inscriptions”
Central Asiatic Journal 44/2:205-230.
Saloman, Richard. 1998. Indian Epigraphy. A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit,
Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages (New York-Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Satuk Buğra Han Destanı. 2017. ed. Necati Demir (Istanbul: Ötüken).
Schaefer, Edward H. 1985. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand. A Study of T’ang Exotics
(Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1963, reprint).
Schramm, Gottfried. 2002. Russlands Anfang. Historische Schlüsse aus Namen, Wörten und
Texten zum 9. und 10. Jahrhundert (Freiberg im Breisgau: Rombach).
Schuessler, Axel 2007. abc Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese (Honolulu: University of
Hawai’i Press).
Schuessler, Axel. 2009. Minimal old Chinese and later Han Chinese: a companion to
Grammata serica recensa (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press).
Sebeos. 1999. The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, trans. Robert W. Thomson, His-
torical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, assisted by Tim Greenwood, Translated
Texts for Historians, 31 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 2 vols.
Sertkaya, Osman Fikri. 1995. Göktürk Tarihinin Meseleleri. Probleme der köktürkischen
Geschichte. Some problems of köktürk history. Türk Kültürü Araştırma Enstitütü

42 golden
Yayınları 131 (Ankara).
Sertkaya, Osman Fikri. 1995a. “Göktürk tarihinin meseleleri: Kül Tigin mi ~ Köl Tigin
mi?”Türk Edebiyatı 35 (Kasım 1974): 23-25, reprinted in Sertkaya, 1995: 129-133.
Sertkaya, Osman Fikri. 1995b, “Bilge Tonyukuk’un Âbidelerinin Tarihlendirilmesi üzerine”
Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi, xx i v-xxv (1986): 347-362, reprinted in Sertkaya, 1995:
113-128
Shabazi, A.Sh. 1990. “On the Xwdây-Nâmag” Iranica Varia Papers on Honor of Professor
Ehsan Yarshater, Textes et Mémoires, v. xvi (Leiden: Brill): 208-229.
Shahbazi, A.Sh. 2012 “Historiography, ii. Pre-Islamic Period” Encyclopaedia Iranica xii/ 3:
325-330 (2003) see: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/historiography-ii
Shimunek, Andrew, 2017. Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China. A
Historical-Comparative Study of the Serbi or Xianbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongolic
Language Family, with an Analysis of Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan
Phonology. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Shirota, Shun. 2005. “The Chinese Chronicles of the Khazars: Notes on Khazaria in Tang
Period Texts” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14: 231-261.
Sirakac’i, see Ananias of Sirak.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2003. “Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders: Linguistic evidence
from the Bactrian documents and inscriptions” in N. Sims-Williams (ed.), Indo-Iranian
Languages and Peoples, Proceedings of the British Academy, 116 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press for the British Academy, 2002, reprint): 225-242.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2011. “Turks and other Peoples in the Bactrian Documents” in
Mehmet, Ölmez et al. (eds.) Ötüken’den İstanbul’a Türkçnin 1290 Yılı (1720-2010) 3-5
Aralık 2010 (İstanbul: Büyüksehir Belediyesi. Kültür ve Sosyal İşler Daire Başkanlığı
Kültür Müdürlüğü): 5-25.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas and Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst (eds.). 2012. Dictionary of
Manichaean Texts, Vol. iii. Texts from Central Asia. Partii. Dictionary of Manicahean
Sogdian and Bactrian (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols)
Sinor, Denis. 1963. Introduction à l’ étude de l’ Eurasie Centrale (Wiesbaden: Otto Harras-
sowitz, 1963)
Sinor, Denis. 1990. “The establishment and dissolution of the Türk empire” in Denis Sinor
(ed.), The Cambrdige History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press): 285-316.
Sinor, Denis. 1997. “Early Turks in Western Central Eurasia, Accompanied by Some Thoughts
on Migrations” in Studia Ottomanica. Festgabe für György Hazai zum 65. Geburtstag,
ed. B. Kellner-Heinkele and Peter Zieme (eds.), (Wiesbaden: Harras- sowitz Verlag,
1997):165-179
Sinor, Denis. 2005. “Reflections on the History and Historiography of the Nomad Empires of
Central Eurasia” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58/1: 3-14.
Smith, Stuart T. 2008. “Crossing Boundaries. Nomadic Groups and Ethnic Identities” in:
Barnard, Hans and Willeke Wendrich (eds.), The Archaeology of Mobility. Old World and

New World Nomadism (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at ucla): 343-366.
Stark, Sören, 2018. “Aspects of Elite Representation Among the Sixth-Seventh-Century
Türks” in Di Cosmo and Maas (eds.), 2018: 333-356.
Al-Tabari. 1967-1969. Tarlx at-Tabarl. Tarlx ar-Rusulwa’l-Mulük, ed. Muhammad Abu’l-
Fadl Ibrahim (Cairo: Dar al-Ma'ärif), 10 vols.
Al-Tabari. 1999. The History of al-Tabarl, vol. v. The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakh-
mids, and Yemen, trans. C.E. Bosworth, Bibliotheca Persica (Albany: State University
Press of New York).
Taskin, V.S. 1984. Materialy po istorii drevnikh kochevykh narodov gruppy dunkhu (Mos-
cow: Nauka).
Taskin, V.S., “O titulakh shan’iui i kagan” Mongolica. Pamiati akademika Borisa Iakovle-
vicha Vladimirtsova (1884-1931) (Moscow: Nauka, 1986): 213-218.
Taşağıl, Ahmet. 1995-2004. Gök-Türkler (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu), 3 vols
Tekin, Talat. 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Uralic and Altaic Series, 69, Indiana
University (The Hague: Mouton & Co.)
Tekin, Talat. 2003. Orhon Türkçesi Grameri. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi 9 (Istanbul,
2003), a revised Turkish version Tekin, 1968.
Theophanes Byzantios, 1870 in: L. Dinsdorf (ed.), Historici Graeci Minores (Lipsiae): 446-
449.
Theophanes. 1980. Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: Teubner 1883-1885, reprint:
Hildesheim-New York: Olms), 2 vols.
Theophanes. 1997. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern
History ad284-8i3, ed. trans. Cyril Mango and Roger Scott with the assistance of Geoffrey
Greatrex (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Theophylaktos Simokattes. 1972.: Theophylacti Simocattae, Historiae, ed. Carl de Boer,
corrected ed. Peter Wirth (1887, corrected reprint: Stuttgard: Teubner)
Theophylaktos Simokattes. 1986.: The History of Theophylact Simocatta, trans. with notes
Michael and Mary Whitby (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Thomson, Robert W. (ed. trans.). 1996. Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Arme-
nian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. The Original Georgian Texts and the
Armenian Adaptation (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Tishin, Vladimir V. 1017. “Plemennye gruppirovki Zapadno-tiurkskogo kaganata: Opyt
rekonstrukcii nazvanii” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 22: 267-299.
Tishin, Vladimir V. 2019. “Sotsial’no-politicheskii kontekst vozniknoveniia drevnetiurk- skoi
runicheskoi pis’mennosti” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy. 2017-2018
gody: Rannie formy i funktsii pis’ma, ed. T.V. Gimon (Moscow: Russkii fond sodeistviia
obrazovaniiu i nauke, 2019): 104-127
tmen, see Doerfer, 1963-1975.
Toumanoff, Cyril. 1963. Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington: Georgetown
University Press, 1963).
Toumanoff, Cyril. 1976. Manuel de généalogie etde chronologie pour l’ histoire de la Caucase

44 golden
Chrétienne (Arménie-Géorgie-Albanie) (Roma: Edizioni Aquila)
Treadgold, Warren. 2010. The Early Byzantine Historians (Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan)
Tremblay, Xavier. 2007. “Kanjaki and Käsyarian Sakan” Central Asiatic Journal 51/1: 6376.
Ünal, Orçun. 2015. “İhe Ashete Yazıtı: Yeni Bir Okuma ve Anlamlandırma Denemesi” Bilig
(Sayı 73): 271-294.
Uray, Géza. 1979. “The Old Tibetan Sources of the History of Central Asia up to 751a.d.” in:
Janos Harmatta (ed.), Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central
Asia (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado): 275-304.
Şirin User, Hatice. 2010. Köktürk ve Ötüken Uygur Kağanlığı Yazıtları. Söz Varlığı İncele-
mesi (Konya: Kömen Yayınları).
Şirin User, Hatice. 2015. Başlangıcından Günümüze Türk Yazı Sistemleri (Ankara, 2006,
reviewed ed. Ankara: Bilge Kültür Sanat).
Venturi, Frederica. 2008. “An Old Tibetan Document on the Uighurs: A New Translation and
Interpretation” Journal of Asian History 42/1:1-35.
Vorob’ëva-Desiatovskaia, M.1.1992. “Khotano-saki” in Litvinskii, 1992: 32-76.
Vovin, Alexander. 2000. “Did the Xiong-nu Speak a Yeneseian Language?” Central Asiatic
Journal, 44/1: 87-104.
Vovin, Alexander. 2003. “Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language? Part 2: Vocabulary”
in Altaica Budapestinensia mmii, Proceedings of the 45th Permanent International
Altaistic Conference, Budapest, June 23-28, 2002 (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, Department of Inner Asian Studies, Eötvös Lorand University): 389-394.
Vovin, Alexander. 2004. “Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Old Turkic 12-Year Animal
Cycle” Central Asiatic Journal 48/1: 118-132.
Vovin, Alexander. 2011. “Once Again on the Ruan-ruan Language” in Mehmet Ölmez, Erhan
Aydın, Peter Zieme, Mustafa S. Kaçalin (eds.). Ötüken’den İstanbul’a Türkçenin 1200 Yılı
(720-2010) Sempozyumu 3-5 Aralık 2010. İstanbul. Bildirilier (İstanbul: İstanbul
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür ve Sosyal İşler Daire Başkanlığı Kültür Müdürlüğü): 27-36.
Vovin, Alexander. 2019. “A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolie Language: the Brahmi Bugut and
Khüis Tolgoi Inscriptions” International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics i: 162197.
Wilkinson, Endymion. 2018. Chinese History. A New Manual, 5th ed. (Cambridge, MA.:
Harvard University Asia Center)
Whitby, Michael. 1988. The Emperor Maurice and His Historian. Theophylact Simocatta on
Persian and Balkan Warfare (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Wood, Philip. 2016. “The Christian Reception of the Xwaday-Namag: Hormizd iv, Khus- rau
ii and their successors” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, ser. 3, 26/3: 407-422.
Xiong, Victor Cunrui. 2009. Historical Dictionary of Medieval China (Lanham, MD.-
Toronto-Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press)
Al-Ya‘qübi, 1970. Ta’rix (Beirut: Dar Bairüt)
Al-Ya‘qübi, 2018: Mathew S. Gordon, Chase F. Robinson, Everett K. Rowson, Michael
Fishbein (eds.) The Works ofIbn Wâdih al-Ya‘qübï. An English Translation (Leiden-

Boston: Brill), 3 vols.
Yıldız, Hüseyin. 2017 “Notes on the Etymology of the Word altai/altay” Dil Araştırmaları 20:
187-201.
Yosef, Koby. 2012. “Dawlat al-Atrak or Dawlat al-Mamalik? Ethnic origin or slave origin as
the defining characteristic of the ruling élite in the Mamlük Sultanate” Jerusalem Studies
in Arabic and Islam 39: 387-410.
Yoshida, Yutaka. 2011. “Some New Readings in the Sogdian Version of the Karabalgasun
Inscription” in Mehmet, Ölmez et al. (eds.) Ötükenden İstanbul’a Türkçnin 1290 Yılı
(1720-2010) 3-5 Aralık 2010 (İstanbul): 77-86
Yoshida, Yutaka. 2012. “Karabalgasun. ii. The Inscription” Encyclopaedia Iranica Vol. xv,
Fasc. 5:530-533, accessed at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/karabalgasun-th e-
inscription
Yoshida, Yutaka. 2019. “Sogdian Version of the Bugut Inscription Revisited” Journal Asi-
atique 307/1: 97-108.
Yoshida, Yutaka and Takao Moriyasu. 1999. “Bugut Inscription” in Moriyasu and Ochir, 1999:
121-125.
Zhdanovich, O.P. 2014. “Posol’stvo Zemarkha v stavku tiurkskogo kagana (perevod i
kommentarii fragmentov truda Menandra protektora”) Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie No. 2
(4): 6-20.
Zimonyi, Istvan. 2001. “Why were the Hungarians Referred to as Turks in the Early Muslim
Sources” in Neptortenet-Nyelvtortenet. A 70 eves Rona-Tas Andras Koszontese (Szeged):
201-212.
Zimonyi, Istvan. 2016. Muslim Sources on the Magyars in the Second Half of the 9th
Century. East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450, vol. 35 (Leiden-Boston:
Brill).
Zuckerman, Constantine. 2007. “The Khazars and Byzantium - The First Encounter” in the
World of the Khazars. New Perspectives, ed. Golden, Peter B. Haggai Ben-Shammai and
Andras Rona-Tas (Leiden-Boston: Brill): 399-432.
Zuev, Iurii A. 1960. “Tamgi loshadei iz vassal’nykh kniazhestv. Perevod iz kitaiskogo
sochineniia viii-x vv. Tankhuiiao t. iii, tsziuan’ 72, str. 1305-1308” Trudy Instituta istorii,
arkheologii I etnografii Akademii nauk Kazakhskoi ssr 8: 93-140.
Zuev, Iurii A. 2002. Rannie tiurki: ocherki istorii i ideologii (Almaty: Daik-Press).
46 The origin(s) and purpose(s) of the runiform script system, known in a number of forms across Turkic
Eurasia (Kyzlasov, 1994) remains a matter of debate. For a recent discussion of the question within
the context of state formation in the steppe and the development of elements of a historical
consciousness among the nomads beyond oral transmission, see the views of Tishin, 2019:104-127.
47 The Runiform letters B and R may be read as -ök/-ük and/or kö/kü (Rona-Tas, 1999, 278; Şirin User,
2014: 35), hence the readings türük, türkü.. Erdal, 2015: 44-45 remarks that the
*k ligature does not require that BTPk “be read as ‘türük’ only because its last character is
sometimes spelled with * *k,” preferring Türk, “attested since early times in Byzantine or Arabic
sources with a final consonant cluster.”
48 BoSun “organized tribal community, a people,” plural/collective of boS “clan” (Clauson, 1972: 296-297,
306). Cf. Bod “tribe” in the Mongolic Khüis Tolgoi inscription-13 (Vovin, 2019: 181, 182,191).

46 golden
49 The name X'w'adaynamag is itself a “reconstruction,” albeit one base on various renderings into Neo-
Persian and Arabic, e.g. Xudaynama, Sahnama etc. It was probably written down (in Middle
Persian) “towards the end of the sixth century,” with a variety of Arabic and Neo-Persian
translations, of varying quality, thereafter (Hameen-Anttila, 2018:1-5). Based on what has come
down to us (in altered forms?), the work was a mix of fact, legend, oral traditions and fiction, which
underwent a series of recensions and additions from the fifth to perhaps the early seventh century,
or even slightly later. Rapp (2014: 191) terms it “a living narrative blending the mythical ancient
Iranian history of the Avesta with Sassanian traditions.”
50 A relatively early translation into Arabic by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (d. 760) may have existed (Duri, 1983: 58-
59), as well as one by Abu Muhammad ‘Abdallâh Rûzbih (d. 757), an Umayyad official of Persian
origin. See Czeglédy, 1958: 21-22; Czeglédy, 1973: 260-261; Latham, 2011; Howard-Johnston,
1995:169-172, Shahbazi, 1990: 208-215; Shahbazi, 2012; Wood, 2016: 407-422.
51 Bonner (2011: 42) comments that the Sira is written in the first-person and hence in style unlike what is
known of Sasanid literature - and most probably “wholly independent” of the sources that went
into the Xwadaynamag.
52 Al-Ya'qubi, in his Ta’rix, writing in the late gth-early 10th century (he died ca. 908), comments that
Hormizd iv (r. 579-590), Xusro I’s son and successor, was the offspring of this union (al-Ya'qubi
1970,1:165; al-Ya'qubi, 2018, i: 2-4, ii: 462). Bal'ami, whose Persian translation (with many
additions) of Tabari began in 963 (Khaleghi-Motlagh 2012), adds that the daughter given by the
Qagan to Xusro I was the child of the “Great Qatun,” herself a daughter of “one of the Turk kings,”
but does not mention her name (Bal'ami, 2012: ii: 306). Al-Mas'udi, writing in the mid-10th
century gives her name as ^313 [Faqum] (al-Mas'udi, 1966-1979, i: 212), but in a much later source
(first half of the 12th century), Ibn al-Balxi (1921: 24, 94, 98) it is recorded as ^313 Qaqum/Qaq'm,
but, seemingly, as the name of the Qagan: ¿$j OAX! ¿13L> ^313 jt>d jl yoj& 5J / ¿13L> ^3l3/jl3l> d^j
^313 ¿13L> jt>d 3I jdlo 5 jli^S”^j. In the mid-7th century history attributed to Sebeos (Howard-
Johnston, 2016), her name is given as Kayen, “daughter of the great Khak’an of the T’etals”
(Sebeos, 1999, i: 14). From this we can assume that ^313 Qaqum/Qaqim, Qayin (^¿13*) or ^J13
(Qayim, as Misin, 2014: 467 and n. 647 suggests) was the probable form of her name. Sebeos used
the ethnicon RtsmLf T’etalk’ (also RhsmLmghf T’etalac’ik’) to denote the Hephthalites, the Khazars
and the Turks, (Sebeos, 1999, ii: 168; Marquart, 1898: 200; Markwart, 1938: 34). Cf. Pahlavi
kakom [k’kwm] “stoat” (MacKenzie, 1986: 48), which could be a calque of her Turkic name: as
“ermine” (?) (Clauson, 1972: 240, Rasonyi, Baski, 2007, i: 78-79).
53 On the use of the Xwadaynamag in Georgian (where it is termed the C’xovrebay Sparst’a “The Life
[History] of the Persians”) and in Armenian sources (e.g. Movses Xorenac’i noted it as the Parsic’
Mateank’ “Books of the Persians”), see Rapp, 2003: 114-118, Rapp, 2014: 191, 196-197, 357-359,
who expresses caution as to whether the pre-Bagratid historians actually “had direct access to a
known written Iranian history or epic.” Nonetheless, in his view, they were “familiar with the
Xwadaynamag tradition” and with the “oral versions of the Iranian epic.” Mention is made in the
Georgian national chronicle, however, of a “book” in which the Persian historical tradition was
written (see below).
54 The sorting out of the dates (and authors) of the various components that formed the K’art’lis
C’xovreba is a daunting task most recently discussed in the works of Rapp (already noted). The
oldest manuscript of the K’art’lis C’xovreba dates to “some point between 1479 and 1495.” The
oldest manuscript of its Armenian translation, Patmut’iwn Vrac’ [“History of the Georgians”] “was
produced sometime between 1274 and 1311” (Rapp, 2014: 173, 380). UnderVaxtangvi (r. 1711-1714,
1719-1723), the whole of the K’art’lis C’xovreba “was comprehensively re-edited.” An expanded
version was produced under his son Vaxusti (d. 1778): the Agcera samep’osa sak’art’velosa
[“Description of the Kingdom of Georgia”], K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955-1973, iv (Rapp, 2014: 9, n. 46,
173). In Rapp’s reconstruction, the now lost source, which he terms Hambavi mep’et’a
(“Story/Report/News of the Kings”), itself a compilation of multiple authors, was the source for the
pre-888, i.e. pre-Bagratid history of Georgia, which was used in the composition/compilation of

the K’art’lis C’xovreba. The latter was put together in the period from ca. 800 to the mid-11th
century (Rapp, 2014: 359-371, 379-380).
55 Rayfield (1994: 53-55) gives 1072 “as the latest date at which” the elusive Mroveli could have composed
this work. The dating of the various parts of the K’art’lis C’xovreba, remain problematic. The dating
of (Pseudo-) Mroveli’s section at ca. 790-813 is suggested by Rapp. Mroveli would appear to be an
11th century compiler, “a talented editor,” who put together a number of earlier historical accounts
(Rapp, 2003: 157-168, Rapp, 2014: 172-174). Rapp (1997: 56) terms Mroveli both an historian and
“a royal propagandist,” with an agenda that was more than historical.
56 K’art’lis C’xovreba, 1955-1959: i: 13,14; K’art’lis C’xovreba 2008: 33, 34; Rapp, 2003:114: Ese- vit’ari
cerili ars c’xovrebasa sparst’esa (“such is written in The Life of the Persians”), vit’arc’a cerili ars
cignsa spars’ta c’xovrebisasa (“as is written in the book[s] of The Life of the Persians”), vit’ar
cerili ars c’xovrebasa sparst’asa (“as is written in the Life [History] of the Persians”).
57 T’urk’et’i is most probably an anachronistic reference to Turan (Rapp, 2014:192-193, 201
202), the general term for the nomadic, Central Eurasian, initially Iranian, foes of Iran.
58 While K’art’velian/Georgian historical writing associates the rise of the first Georgian king
dom under P’arnavaz (299-234 b c e) with Alexander the Great’s destruction of Achaeme- nid Iran,
“any immediate connection of K’art’li and Alexander is fantastical” (Rapp, 2014: 199, 203-204,
355,385).
59 In the K’art’lis c’xovreba, 1955-1959, i: 17,18 they appear several times alongside the qivc’aqi
(Qipcaqs). In the most recent edition of the K’art’lis c’xovreba, 2003: they appear only once - and
without the Qipcaqs, whose appearance here was probably the result of an 11th century
interpolation, as Rapp, 2014: 133, n. 145 suggests. In any event, all references to Turks in
Transcaucasia at this time are anachronistic.
60 Pahlavi (MacKenzie, 1986: 20, 86): bun “base, foundation, bottom,” also wan “tree; stock, stem.”
Thomson, 1996: 23, 25 rendered bun as “real, original.” The 13th century Armenian translation of
the K’art’lis C’xovreba does not mention the bunt’urk’i.
61 See discussion of this source in Rapp, 2003: 115, 197-242; Rapp, 2014: 172-173, 331-332, 380.
62 Toumanoff, 1963: 373-374, 380-381, 383.

Reflections On The Ethnonym Turk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reflections On The Ethnonym Turk

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reflections On The Ethnonym Turk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From the Khan’s Oven

Studies on the History of Central Asian Religions in

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

Preface: Devin DeWeese ix

1 Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk 1

2 Aymaq in 16th-Century Persian Sources from Central Asia

3 The “Sultans of the Turks”

5 Sayyid Muhammad Işfahânı (Shah Käshän)

6 After the Eclipse

7 Saints, Lost and Found: The Discovery of Sacred Graves in Sufi

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

9 Sufi Saint or Salafi Reformer?

10 “On the Importance of Having a Method”

11 Atheist and Muslim

12 Holy Virgin Lands?

13 Sayaq Ata and the Antelopes

Reflections on the Ethnonym Türk

Ethnicity and the modes or strategies of ethnic identification, both self-identi-

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

© Peter B. Golden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471177_002

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

territory of the “King of Masqat” (ii-JJ ¿J*)

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

bq Bilge Qağan Inscription (735, Kemp, 2004: 44)

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV